# Who will be the next Labour leader?



## Don Troooomp (Nov 7, 2019)

It's becoming pretty obvious Corbyn is far from popular among the UK population and is very probably the single biggest reason Labour is doing so badly.
Assuming (not that big an assumption given the bloody terrible looking polls) the Tories take the election in a landslide, or at least a large majority, who will be the next leader when Corbyn is forced out?

I've added a visible poll - Perhaps you'd like to vote and explain why in the thread


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 7, 2019)

I like Kier, much of his appeal being his pro-EU stance (and voting record), positive opinions on gay rights and same sex marriage, and his general attitude to things. There are a couple of things I'm not too sure about, especially Trident, but I was impressed with his ability to say his piece on difficult and emotional subjects such as euthanasia.
He comes over well in front of a camera, is clearly a very bright bloke, and someone who could well make an excellent party leader - A man who could take Labour into a future election and win.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Nov 7, 2019)

Do one, you prick .


Don Troooomp said:


> Perhaps you'd like to vote and explain why in the thread


Nah.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 7, 2019)

Time to forget Tom


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> It's becoming pretty obvious Corbyn is ... very probably the single biggest reason Labour is doing so badly.


So obvious and yet you’ve been completely unable to provide any coherent evidence for it across multiple threads of being asked for this. 

Here’s something obvious: Labour were unpopular under Brown, unpopular under Miliband and actually saw their vote rise in 2017 under Corbyn, who presented some policies that were — gasp — popular.  Here’s something else obvious: Labour’s biggest problem right now is trying to hold together the Brexit-voting base in the north of the country with their remain-voting support in the south, which is an issue not remotely of Corbyn’s making.  You’ve swallowed a narrative of it being all about leaders in the face of all historical evidence.  And in repeatedly insisting on it, you’re making an absolute tit of yourself.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2019)

Purely anecdotal this, so don't jump down my throat (if you can resist the urge) but I could never find any JC fans back in London. Or those who would admit to it. Even Labour voters were reticent to voice support for him, in our conversations. Probably ex-Blairites. At least in my area. Various comments included "he's mad/a traitor/will destroy the country/is a communist/is a terrorist supporter" and all the other predictable shit. The venom came from all kinds of people, young, old, wc, toffs, black, white, Irish, Scottish etc etc. 

Still, as pointed out above, it's something of a tradition for large amounts of vitriol to be poured on Labour leaders over the years. I don't envy the task ahead of Corbyn but if I still lived there, I would vote for him.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 7, 2019)

You mean a member of his party to represent your area in parliament (unless by London you meant Islington North)


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 7, 2019)

Forty-odd percent in the last election, wasn’t it? Biggest labour vote in a generation after a succession of centrist gonks. Only the collapse of the Lib Dem vote due to their treachery and the political situation in Scotland kept them out of power, neither of which Corbyn had control of.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2019)

S☼I said:


> You mean a member of his party to represent your area in parliament (unless by London you meant Islington North)



I doubt even JC would be able to represent me here in Japan, but yay to international socialism anyway! And no, it wasn't Islington


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 7, 2019)

I want Skinner just for comic value and his ability to get under the vermin's skin.

Shit thread.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 7, 2019)

kabbes said:


> So obvious and yet you’ve been completely unable to provide any coherent evidence for it across multiple threads of being asked for this.
> 
> Here’s something obvious: Labour were unpopular under Brown, unpopular under Miliband and actually saw their vote rise in 2017 under Corbyn, who presented some policies that were — gasp — popular.  Here’s something else obvious: Labour’s biggest problem right now is trying to hold together the Brexit-voting base in the north of the country with their remain-voting support in the south, which is an issue not remotely of Corbyn’s making.  You’ve swallowed a narrative of it being all about leaders in the face of all historical evidence.  And in repeatedly insisting on it, you’re making an absolute tit of yourself.


I know why too. It's cos he's thick as pigshit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 7, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> and is very probably the single biggest reason Labour is doing so badly


Rarely have I seen such obvious media-induced tabefaction of critical thinking.

There are two very long threads in which the actual shortcomings of Corbyn and Corbynism are debated. You could have learned from them both in the years they’ve been active. And yet here you are just regurgitating the pap you are fed by the media, from Foot’s cenotaph duffle coat to Corbyn being “hard left”. Christ, man, it’s embarrassing. It’s just stunning wilful lygophilia. No wonder we end up with a choice between variants of neoliberalism.

I’m not a Corbyn fan. I’m not a Labour fan. But your shallow, hypophrenic recitation of headline “common sense” gives me the boak.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 7, 2019)

Liked for useage of boak


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I like Kier, much of his appeal being his pro-EU stance (and voting record), positive opinions on gay rights and same sex marriage, and his general attitude to things. There are a couple of things I'm not too sure about, especially Trident, but I was impressed with his ability to say his piece on difficult and emotional subjects such as euthanasia.
> He comes over well in front of a camera, is clearly a very bright bloke, and someone who could well make an excellent party leader - A man who could take Labour into a future election and win.


if you like keir starmer you might do him the courtesy of spelling his name correctly


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 7, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> if you like keir starmer you might do him the courtesy of spelling his name correctly


I assumed he just wanted to outsource the job tbh


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 7, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Rarely have I seen such obvious media-induced tabefaction of critical thinking.
> 
> There are two very long threads in which the actual shortcomings of Corbyn and Corbynism are debated. You could have learned from them both in the years they’ve been active. And yet here you are just regurgitating the pap you are fed by the media, from Foot’s cenotaph duffle coat to Corbyn being “hard left”. Christ, man, it’s embarrassing. It’s just stunning wilful lygophilia. No wonder we end up with a choice between variants of neoliberalism.
> 
> I’m not a Corbyn fan. I’m not a Labour fan. But your shallow, hypophrenic recitation of headline “common sense” gives me the boak.



Liked for making me look up three words.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2019)

Not the content?


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 7, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I like Kier, much of his appeal being his pro-EU stance (and voting record), positive opinions on gay rights and same sex marriage, and his general attitude to things. There are a couple of things I'm not too sure about, especially Trident, but I was impressed with his ability to say his piece on difficult and emotional subjects such as euthanasia.
> He comes over well in front of a camera, is clearly a very bright bloke, and someone who could well make an excellent party leader - A man who could take Labour into a future election and win.


Sums up all thats wrong with some Labour supporters when there isnt a single mention of economic equality in their to go list about a candidate of their choice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2019)

And their choice is a mould-breaking private school oxbridge one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 7, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> And their choice is a mould-breaking private school oxbridge one.


That’s exactly what makes him “come over well”. His ability to have been to a posh school and university.


----------



## JimW (Nov 7, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Sums up all thats wrong with some Labour supporters when there isnt a single mention of economic equality in their to go list about a candidate of their choice


First thing I thought too.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 7, 2019)

Dennis Skinner


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> That’s exactly what makes him “come over well”. His ability to have been to a posh school and university.


basically don's saying any half-decent public speaker impresses him, he'd bow and scrape before a mosley or even a tyndall because he's more impressed by the presentation than the content.


----------



## Bingo (Nov 7, 2019)

Angela Rayner


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 7, 2019)

Bingo said:


> Angela Rayner


My ex branch secretary


----------



## Bingo (Nov 7, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> My ex branch secretary



Is she decent?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> My ex branch secretary


I take it you mean union rather than party?!


----------



## treelover (Nov 7, 2019)

I wish it would be John Mc, his speech this morning was superb.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 7, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Liked for making me look up three words.



I had to look up three words too. I wonder if it was the same three words?

When I write 'look up', I really mean that I said to myself 'What the fuck does that word mean?', and then went back to moaning at the kids.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 7, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> And their choice is a mould-breaking private school oxbridge one.



Proper ex-Trot too, unlike that lightweight Corbyn.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 7, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I take it you mean union rather than party?!


Of v
Course God forbid. Unison .She was ok actually .


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 7, 2019)

Bingo said:


> Is she decent?


It's hard to judge what people do when they get to Shadow cabinet status or where they go but she was a hard working, left talking branch secretary with no truck for trots who has worked her way up.


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 7, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> lygophilia


 There you go again


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 7, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> Proper ex-Trot too, unlike that lightweight Corbyn.


What type of trot was he? IMG I reckon


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> What type of trot was he? IMG I reckon


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 7, 2019)

Faiza Shaheen


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 7, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> What type of trot was he? IMG I reckon



Supposedly he self-described himself as a Pabloite back in the day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2019)

top trolling by the op


----------



## bellaozzydog (Nov 7, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> It's becoming pretty obvious Corbyn is far from popular among the UK population and is very probably the single biggest reason Labour is doing so badly.
> Assuming (not that big an assumption given the bloody terrible looking polls) the Tories take the election in a landslide, or at least a large majority, who will be the next leader when Corbyn is forced out?
> 
> I've added a visible poll - Perhaps you'd like to vote and explain why in the thread



Fuck off


----------



## bellaozzydog (Nov 7, 2019)

At least he isn’t a fucking Kinnock





Probably slightly low bar that


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 7, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I like Kier, much of his appeal being his pro-EU stance (and voting record), positive opinions on gay rights and same sex marriage, and his general attitude to things. There are a couple of things I'm not too sure about, especially Trident, but I was impressed with his ability to say his piece on difficult and emotional subjects such as euthanasia.
> He comes over well in front of a camera, is clearly a very bright bloke, and someone who could well make an excellent party leader - A man who could take Labour into a future election and win.



So you've answered Smokeandsteam 's question finally. You want Starmer. 

You're wrong. He's useless and Labour would get absolutely battered by the Tories in this election if Starmer were the leader.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 7, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> What type of trot was he? IMG I reckon



Not a trot then.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 7, 2019)

I'd have Laura Pidcock though. And not McDonnell the bottling twat.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> top trolling by the op



No trolling from me. 
I want a strong Labour party able so slap Johnson and the tories down, and that means a new leader. No matter how much Corbyn's supporters try to paint anyone who says anything against him as anti Labour, or just trolls, the election result is looking like it's going to bring a crushing defeat and that will, or at least bloody well should, make a leadership battle inevitable.
The trick is going to be finding a leader the public can back, but those debates have to be held out of the way of the press so a unified front can be shown in front of everyone, including the tories.
Once Labour gets a new, acceptable, and strong leader able to take Johnson on at the ballot box, Labour has a chance to find itself with a leader in number ten.

So, as the polls are looking lousy, thus a leadership contest is on the cards, who do you think should be in the job?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No trolling from me.
> I want a strong Labour party able so slap Johnson and the tories down, and that means a new leader. No matter how much Corbyn's supporters try to paint anyone who says anything against him as anti Labour, or just trolls, the election result is looking like it's going to bring a crushing defeat and that will, or at least bloody well should, make a leadership battle inevitable.
> The trick is going to be finding a leader the public can back, but those debates have to be held out of the way of the press so a unified front can be shown in front of everyone, including the tories.
> Once Labour gets a new, acceptable, and strong leader able to take Johnson on at the ballot box, Labour has a chance to find itself with a leader in number ten.
> ...


Why are you asking me questions before you answer the questions I put to you? Back up your claim I've shown support for Corbyn or apologise.


----------



## Poot (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No trolling from me.
> I want a strong Labour party able so slap Johnson and the tories down, and that means a new leader. No matter how much Corbyn's supporters try to paint anyone who says anything against him as anti Labour, or just trolls, the election result is looking like it's going to bring a crushing defeat and that will, or at least bloody well should, make a leadership battle inevitable.
> The trick is going to be *finding a leader the public can back,* but those debates have to be held out of the way of the press so a unified front can be shown in front of everyone, including the tories.
> Once Labour gets a new, acceptable, and strong leader able to take Johnson on at the ballot box, Labour has a chance to find itself with a leader in number ten.
> ...



There's an awful lot of public out there. Do you mean the _whole_ public? If not, who? And do you think some people might actually back Corbyn and some not? Do you have statistics to back up your answers? 

Your arguments are really quite nebulous. And I speak as the mother of a 'politically engaged' 13 year old.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No trolling from me.
> I want a strong Labour party able so slap Johnson and the tories down, and that means a new leader. No matter how much Corbyn's supporters try to paint anyone who says anything against him as anti Labour, or just trolls, the election result is looking like it's going to bring a crushing defeat and that will, or at least bloody well should, make a leadership battle inevitable.
> The trick is going to be finding a leader the public can back, but those debates have to be held out of the way of the press so a unified front can be shown in front of everyone, including the tories.
> Once Labour gets a new, acceptable, and strong leader able to take Johnson on at the ballot box, Labour has a chance to find itself with a leader in number ten.
> ...



You want secret leadership debates, you want a leadership election in the middle of a GE campaign, you want that horrible android Starme to be able to connect with the public. What else do you want, unicorns that shit ice cream?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 14, 2019)

Not in the middle of an election run no matter how bad it's looking, but talks need to be going on now to sort out who the replacement will be in order to have a smooth changeover after the election.
If it can be set up as a united front, the new leader will have a better chance against Johnson.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Nov 14, 2019)

As for secrets, yes.
The arguing has to be done behind closed doors so the shite daily mail and their like have nothing to say.
Once that's sorted, on with the public part of the process.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> As for secrets, yes.
> The arguing has to be done behind closed doors so the shite daily mail and their like have nothing to say.
> Once that's sorted, on with the public part of the process.



Of course, no-one will ever find out that Labour were choosing their next leader behind closed doors, mid-election, essentially admitting to themselves they have no chance of winning. That would definitely stay under wraps. Of course.


----------



## isvicthere? (Nov 14, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> Liked for useage of boak



But minus points for "gives" instead of "gies"!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2019)

It's almost as if this idiot hasn't yet grasped that playing the game in semi public, leaking, making elements of the media a willing tool of your agenda are a large part of the game now. And have been for a long time. This is political naivity of the first water.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> No trolling from me.
> I want a strong Labour party able so slap Johnson and the tories down, and that means a new leader. No matter how much Corbyn's supporters try to paint anyone who says anything against him as anti Labour, or just trolls, the election result is looking like it's going to bring a crushing defeat and that will, or at least bloody well should, make a leadership battle inevitable.
> The trick is going to be finding a leader the public can back, but those debates have to be held out of the way of the press so a unified front can be shown in front of everyone, including the tories.
> Once Labour gets a new, acceptable, and strong leader able to take Johnson on at the ballot box, Labour has a chance to find itself with a leader in number ten.
> ...



Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> As for secrets, yes.
> The arguing has to be done behind closed doors so the shite daily mail and their like have nothing to say.
> Once that's sorted, on with the public part of the process.



Is this some sort of post-modernist joke? 

I'm aware that, generally speaking, sections of the left are _far _more concerned even to the point of obsession about the line/the leader/purity/sectarian point scoring/ego than addressing the immediate problems that confront the class it professes to lead. I am aware hobbyism is the real motivation for swathes of the wankers and balloons. That's a given. Let those of us who despise them for it suck it up for another month.  

But this is an election like no other in living memory. There is a choice between the election of a party committed to furthering neoliberalism and seeking to fuse it into popular expression. Or there is a party that - despite 1 million caveats, some serious - promises to turn the compass in a minutely different direction and back towards some form of social democratic breathing space. It's hard to think, under current conditions, of a more fundamental moment. 

And at that very moment you suggest a secret process to potentially undo it. To focus away from the choice. To look inwards. You are a joke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Not in the middle of an election run no matter how bad it's looking, but talks need to be going on now to sort out who the replacement will be in order to have a smooth changeover after the election.
> If it can be set up as a united front, the new leader will have a better chance against Johnson.


talks must be had so it can all be stitched up

yeh you really believe in democracy


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There is a choice between the election of a party committed to furthering neoliberalism and seeking to fuse it into popular expression. Or there is a party that - despite 1 million caveats, some serious - promises to turn the compass in a minutely different direction and back towards some form of social democratic breathing space. It's hard to think, under current conditions, of a more fundamental moment.



Just this...thanks.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 14, 2019)

Depends how badly he loses, If it's like 2017 and we have another minority Tory goverment then he may stay on longer in case there is yet another election soon.
If the current polls do pan out then it doesn't really matter who the next leader of the Labour Party is because he/she will have no chance of being PM either.
When Maggie T won in 1979 pretty much everyone I knew consoled themselves with the thought she would be gone in 5 years. If Boris gets returned with a majority of 100+ then we are in for 10-15 years of the bastard and it won't be Corbyn's successor than might win but the leader after them which rules out people like Starmer or indeed anyone currently prominent.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2019)

If Johnson gets returned with 100+ majority I suspect Labour is done for a generation, which may well mean forever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Depends how badly he loses, If it's like 2017 and we have another minority Tory goverment then he may stay on longer in case there is yet another election soon.
> If the current polls do pan out then it doesn't really matter who the next leader of the Labour Party is because he/she will have no chance of being PM either.
> When Maggie T won in 1979 pretty much everyone I knew consoled themselves with the thought she would be gone in 5 years. If Boris gets returned with a majority of 100+ then we are in for 10-15 years of the bastard and it won't be Corbyn's successor than might win but the leader after them which rules out people like Starmer or indeed anyone currently prominent.





chilango said:


> If Johnson gets returned with 100+ majority I suspect Labour is done for a generation, which may well mean forever.


i'd like to see the working behind it because it seems to me based more on despondency than on any actual acute judgement.

whoever is in power next, be they labour or tory, is going to be a bit fucked. fucked if they engineer a remain, fucked probably greater if they engineer a departure from the eu. in the latter case there will be many years of brexit legislation and stagnation before us. not to mention all the other issues which would pop up as a result of a johnson departure eg the us trade deal which might never happen due to the gfa. i can't see this really improving the next administration's chances at the ballot box in c.2024. and that's before you factor in the various hurdles johnson would have to jump to remain prime minister, e.g. the investigation about his relationship with arcuri.

so 2 or 3 terms of tories? maybe 1.


----------



## chilango (Nov 14, 2019)

Pickman's model I don't think Johnson will sweep to a 100+ majority. I don't think the op is valid.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> Pickman's model I don't think Johnson will sweep to a 100+ majority. I don't think the op is valid.



I think the OP would rather have the Johnson majority just so they can say "I was right".  The fucking nutter.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> If Johnson gets returned with 100+ majority I suspect Labour is done for a generation, which may well mean forever.





chilango said:


> Pickman's model I don't think Johnson will sweep to a 100+ majority. I don't think the op is valid.



Fair but I think if Johnson were to get a massive majority (and I think it's a possibility he can get a majority but not a large one) the reality of his Brexit deal will cause the Tories a lot of problems for a very long time. You can imagine what the reaction will be the first time the ECJ tells a govt they can't do something because they have agreed to ECJ oversight of economic policy. That "traitors" narrative is likely to bite back.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 14, 2019)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> I think the OP would rather have the Johnson majority just so they can say "I was right".  The fucking nutter.



Yeah but then they'd be disappointed that Brexit wasn't as apocalyptic as they thought.


----------



## pesh (Nov 14, 2019)

Corbyn is far from popular says Urban's least self aware poster


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

Probably one for the feedback forum this but surely we can ban posters for being tedious as fuck. Like that wank radio 4 thing, get them on repitition. We all know he's a tit, get rid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Probably one for the feedback forum this but surely we can ban posters for being tedious as fuck. Like that wank radio 4 thing, get them on repitition. We all know he's a tit, get rid.


falls under



i think

and


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> As for secrets, yes.
> The arguing has to be done behind closed doors so the shite daily mail and their like have nothing to say.
> Once that's sorted, on with the public part of the process.


Would labour members be in on the secret or can't they be trusted to watch the debates either? 

Ive got a suspicion you might not have really thought this through, call it a hunch.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2019)

Whoever it is has to jettison second referendum imo. Hopefully by the time there's another election brexit will have happened already anyhow


----------



## Maidmarian (Dec 13, 2019)

Me - obs x


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 13, 2019)

Piers Corbyn.


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 13, 2019)

Ignore...


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2019)

Pidcock gone....


----------



## Calamity1971 (Dec 13, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Pidcock gone....


My ex MP.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2019)

Calamity1971 said:


> My ex MP.


is really a sad loss, shes jsut the kind of person you want as a local mp.

heard paul mason just now saying whoever takes over needs to be 'someone of stature' to be able to hold everything together...probably will be the case...
its going to be keir starmer isnt it


what i saw of angela rayner this last month (not much but a bit) i liked.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Dec 13, 2019)

ska invita said:


> is really a sad loss, shes jsut the kind of person you want as a local mp.
> 
> heard paul mason just now saying whoever takes over needs to be 'someone of stature' to be able to hold everything together...probably will be the case...
> its going to be keir starmer isnt it
> ...


She did actually care. Not very often you trust an MP. But there you go. .


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2019)

Calamity1971 said:


> She did actually care. Not very often you trust an MP. But there you go. .


I expect she'll be back... Somewhere. I know she had a really good local and commited team around her too. Gutting.

Have heard mention of Gardiner stepping in, as interim at least. Anyone but Thornbrrry tbh,  that would make this all even bleacker.


----------



## NoXion (Dec 13, 2019)

It'll be some Blairite non-entity, and they'll spend the next 5years scratching their heads wondering why they're doing even worse in the polls.


----------



## Lorca (Dec 13, 2019)

membership is still dominated by momentum/corbynites though innit?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 13, 2019)

Yeah I don't think it will be a Blarite - (1) they don't have enough support in the party, (2) they are split themselves between arch remainers (Adonis, Mandelson) and those that wanted to keep leave voters onside (Flint, Kinnock). 

More likely someone in the mould of Miliband.


----------



## moochedit (Dec 13, 2019)

So how many of the people in the op's poll are still mp's?


----------



## eoin_k (Dec 13, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I like Kier, much of his appeal being his pro-EU stance (and voting record), positive opinions on gay rights and same sex marriage, and his general attitude to things. [...]



His record at the CPS ensuring the avoidance of police prosecutions for the killing of Ian Tomlinson demonstrated the sort of qualities I'd expect you to admire in a politician.


----------



## Lorca (Dec 13, 2019)

Is it possible that Corbyn will actually stay on for a good while yet though? There will be intense  pressure to go, but there is always.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 13, 2019)

Starmer (who I'm sure Mason was angling for) would be a disaster. He has been one of the chief architects of Labour's failure in this election.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 13, 2019)

Lorca said:


> Is it possible that Corbyn will actually stay on for a good while yet though? There will be intense  pressure to go, but there is always.



Better to go quickly imo, the Left needs it's bitterness and rage to back it's own candidate. Longer we wait, the more the edge is taken off.


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

I probabably would go for Lisa Nandy.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2019)

moochedit said:


> So how many of the people in the op's poll are still mp's?


only Watson's gone.  Tho I think we can safely rule Ashworth out too now


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 13, 2019)

Angela Raynor. I may trust her too much as she's the spitting image of a mate (although not Scottish) but she seems pretty good. It has to be someone Leave friendly in a northern English seat.


----------



## Southlondon (Dec 13, 2019)

It’s a case of whether or not there are enough left wing MPs to get a lefty into the leadership ballot


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Southlondon said:


> It’s a case of whether or not there are enough left wing MPs to get a lefty into the leadership ballot


21? I think that's doable.


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> 21? I think that's doable.


Can now nominate through trade unions and affiliated societies and not need any MPs signatures at all. Apparently any two trade unions would beat the 5% needed to achieve this.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

maomao said:


> Can now nominate through trade unions and affiliated societies and not need any MPs signatures at all. Apparently any two trade unions would beat the 5% needed to achieve this.


There in now no reason for there ever to not be a left candidate on there now then. That's one of the internal victories that they won.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 13, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Here’s something obvious: Labour were unpopular under Brown, unpopular under Miliband and actually saw their vote rise in 2017 under Corbyn, who presented some policies that were — gasp — popular.  Here’s something else obvious: Labour’s biggest problem right now is trying to hold together the Brexit-voting base in the north of the country with their remain-voting support in the south, which is an issue not remotely of Corbyn’s making.



In light of today's vote this is a good point for labour. What would've been labour's winning Brexit position have been? I've not heard that answered in which case it was Corbyn and the ineffective campaign that must be the seeds of their defeat.

I've no idea who the next leader will be right now. Today it seems a pretty poisoned chalice. Freedland digs the knife in.

Maybe Sadiq Khan will be eventually.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 13, 2019)

DJWrongspeed said:


> In light of today's vote this is a good point for labour. What would've been labour's winning Brexit position have been? I've not heard that answered in which case it was Corbyn and the ineffective campaign that must be the seeds of their defeat.
> 
> I've no idea who the next leader will be right now. Today it seems a pretty poisoned chalice. Freedland digs the knife in.
> 
> Maybe Sadiq Khan will be eventually.


I think the knife crime issue in London would sabotage any suggestion of Khan tbh


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

She looks pretty cool as well.


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)




----------



## kebabking (Dec 13, 2019)

treelover - what, and who, the fuck are you withering about?

Jonny Vegas seems to have let himself go a bit...


----------



## Humberto (Dec 13, 2019)

I believe it's Lisa Nandy. Possible leadership candidate.


----------



## Ming (Dec 13, 2019)

Can we have the corpse of John Smith? His death changed the path of history IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

I think a little lol here.


----------



## treelover (Dec 13, 2019)

Go on BA, tell us why Lisa wouldn't be the right person.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 13, 2019)

I'm so befuddled these days I can barely tell if this is real or not


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

treelover said:


> Go on BA, tell us why Lisa wouldn't be the right person.


What?

I laughed at the idea of the heroised john smith and what he represented , not lisa nandy. I've never heard of her.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Or this one above.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

Nandy would be a step back from current leadership - coordinated the owen smith challenge and voting record not bad but bit shit on tax stuff - against raising personal allowance, against increasing corporation tax, against stronger measures on tax avoidance. Flip flopped a bit on EU but does seem to get it. Soft left type, bit of a darling of labour left pre corbyn.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

I'm in.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 14, 2019)

Wrong thread...


----------



## kebabking (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Or this one above.



He is _spectacular. _He is the momentum version of Chris Grayling - just with more hair product and without the forensic grasp of detail that Grayling displays.

If you enjoy laughing at stupid people, he's a comedy gold mine.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> He is _spectacular. _He is the momentum version of Chris Grayling - just with more hair product and without the forensic grasp of detail that Grayling displays.
> 
> If you enjoy laughing at stupid people, he's a comedy gold mine.


In an election night full of low points for Labour, Burgon's performance on the BBC coverage was as bad as the exit poll anouncent. 

I like this quote from that twatter thread:

He says things in a way that people can really look at and it makes them think and they think things like ‘what was it he said’ and then they wonder what it was. Which is is why he makes people think.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 14, 2019)

Calamity1971 said:


> She did actually care. Not very often you trust an MP. But there you go. .


----------



## Big Bertha (Dec 14, 2019)

Yvette Cooper or Jess Philips


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

Big Bertha said:


> Yvette Cooper or Jess Philips


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 14, 2019)

Angela raynor would be my bet. Left enough for the membership, is witty and down to earth on tv, great backstory. Jess Phillips without the backstabbing and quite so blatant self promotion.
 Young, a women, not too closely associated with corbyn. I dont trust her politically but i think she may well get it and harder to deomnise then corbs.


----------



## marshall (Dec 14, 2019)

Clive Lewis? Local MP, seems sound  No point going with the same-old names in the frame imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

I haven't seen a single old name in the frame tbh. He would be the closest to one i've heard mentioned.


----------



## tommers (Dec 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


>


Hahaha


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 14, 2019)

Lisa Nandy.

Although I’d prefer it if they just announced they were giving up the politics game, setting up a Patreon account and were going to merge with the SWP


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Hopefully Starmer but nothing I want is ever going to happen.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> And their choice is a mould-breaking private school oxbridge one.


I’m confused. Who are you talking about? Not Starmer, as he went to a state school.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m confused. Who are you talking about? Not Starmer, as he went to a state school.


A semi-state school that just happened to become a private school. A private school in all but name, like many. And he was there when it became a private school - unless he left at age 13. So it was semi-state when he first went and fully private well before he left for oxbridge.


----------



## Lorca (Dec 14, 2019)

.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> A semi-state school that just happened to become a private school. A private school in all but name, like many. And he was there when it became a private school - unless he left at age 13. So it was semi-state when he first went and fully private well before he left for oxbridge.


Just googled it. It was a grammar school when he started and turned private when he was 14. Whether at that stage he’d have had to pay for it I have no idea given he was already here - but anyway who cares? Your hero corbyn went to private school!


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 14, 2019)

Who will be the next leader, I don’t know, presumably Corbyn has been told to stay in until McCluskey and Landsman figure out a puppet, I’m not sure they’ll give up on power that easy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Just googled it. It was a grammar school when he started and turned private when he was 14. Whether at that stage he’d have had to pay for it I have no idea given he was already here - but anyway who cares? Your hero corbyn went to private school!


My hero Corbyn? Not been reading that closely have you? 

So, when i said he was private school and oxbridge i was right - yes?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Who will be the next leader, I don’t know, presumably Corbyn has been told to stay in until McCluskey and Landsman figure out a puppet, I’m not sure they’ll give up on power that easy.


Into proper conspiracy theory territory now aren't you. Tragic. Actually no it's not, this was always you, there's been no decline.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Who will be the next leader, I don’t know, presumably Corbyn has been told to stay in until McCluskey and Landsman figure out a puppet, I’m not sure they’ll give up on power that easy.


By who - his anti-jew master string pullers?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> My hero Corbyn? Not been reading that closely have you?
> 
> So, when i said he was private school and oxbridge i was right - yes?


Nah tbf I haven’t. Just swooped in to defend my beloved Starmer.
I didn’t deny Oxbridge it was the private school I was confused by. And he did go to grammar school.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

He was so good in the mclibel documentary!

And he’s no blairite either: 
Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Time to build the STARMENTUM!!!


----------



## Spandex (Dec 14, 2019)

Big Bertha said:


> Yvette Cooper


Making a relic of the Blair era leader won't bring back Labour's success from the Blair era. You might as well make Clem Atlee's hat leader and hope for the best. Or do you like her sensible centrist politics - capitalism with a smiley face - the sort of politics that did worse than Labour on Thursday?



Big Bertha said:


> Jess Philips


I don't know a huge amount about Phillips. She certainly has the gift of the gab, but I can't help suspecting her main political interest is Jess Phillips.



fakeplasticgirl said:


> Hopefully Starmer


Starmer looks like the poster boy for a 1950s dystopia. Every time he's on the telly I expect Dan Dare to leap on screen and save us from his droning on.


----------



## Southlondon (Dec 14, 2019)

maomao said:


> Can now nominate through trade unions and affiliated societies and not need any MPs signatures at all. Apparently any two trade unions would beat the 5% needed to achieve this.


You’re right I was forgetting  about the rule changes.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Into proper conspiracy theory territory now aren't you. Tragic. Actually no it's not, this was always you, there's been no decline.


You're the tragedy.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> By who - his anti-jew master string pullers?


You think it was his idea to stay on?.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Who are the mind-benders, the hidden hand, the string-pullers sleater?


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> You think it was his idea to stay on?.


Of course it is. Planning for the succession has always been part of the plan. Why do you think the right are so keen for him to go immediately?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> Of course it is. Planning for the succession has always been part of the plan. Why do you think the right are so keen for him to go immediately?


Exactly. The succession.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Maybe it says something about sleater's experience of and expectations of collective endeavors - in it for themselves, despite Corbyn quite clearly showing a long term commitment to a set of principles that mean leaving people in the lurch isn't an option but that planning is. Or he might just be a self-centred tit driven conspiracy mad.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe it says something about sleater's experience of and expectations of collective endeavors - in it for themselves, despite Corbyn quite clearly showing a long term commitment to a set of principles that mean leaving people in the lurch isn't an option but that planning is. Or he might just be a self-centred tit driven conspiracy mad.


Now this is the conspiraloon stuff.

Nevermind losing elections, lets not leave people in the lurch.

McDonnell has had the decency to step aside.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Exactly. The succession.


there's always a bloody succession, don't be daft.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was so good in the mclibel documentary!
> 
> And he’s no blairite either:
> Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

belboid said:


> there's always a bloody succession, don't be daft.


_The Succession_ - sounds like an Illuminati conspiracy.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

kabbes said:


> So obvious and yet you’ve been completely unable to provide any coherent evidence for it across multiple threads of being asked for this.
> 
> Here’s something obvious: Labour were unpopular under Brown, unpopular under Miliband and actually saw their vote rise in 2017 under Corbyn, who presented some policies that were — gasp — popular.  Here’s something else obvious: Labour’s biggest problem right now is trying to hold together the Brexit-voting base in the north of the country with their remain-voting support in the south, which is an issue not remotely of Corbyn’s making.  You’ve swallowed a narrative of it being all about leaders in the face of all historical evidence.  And in repeatedly insisting on it, you’re making an absolute tit of yourself.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> _The Succession_ - sounds like an Illuminati conspiracy.


great book


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2019)

Sebastian Payne of the Financial Times


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

This is interesting from Lewis Goodall 
General election: Corbyn's greatest failure is not providing a left-wing alternative to Brexit


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> This is interesting from Lewis Goodall
> General election: Corbyn's greatest failure is not providing a left-wing alternative to Brexit


What that says to me is that Corbyn became a liability _only when labour adopted an effectively pro-remain position_ - he became the lightning rod for that stupidity. That article is an illustrated account basically of what changed between 17 and 19.



> Labour has become associated with attempts to block or reverse our leaving the EU.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 14, 2019)

There is no chance of the labour party influencing anything with the majority the Evil Empire holds.
The best next Labour leader is the one who can attack, wrong foot and ridicule Boris Johnson and the others at every opportunity, which means PMQ's mainly.
For that you need to be articulate and quick witted and disarming and come up with memorable lines.
None of the list above would fit that bill. Maybe Yvette Cooper might but she won't get it.
I keep thinking about how the Liberals went from Fallon to Swinson, bad to worse in the eyes of voters, and it looks as if Labour might end up doing the same.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

philosophical said:


> There is no chance of the labour party influencing anything with the majority the Evil Empire holds.
> The best next Labour leader is the one who can attack, wrong foot and ridicule Boris Johnson and the others at every opportunity, which means PMQ's mainly.
> For that you need to be articulate and quick witted and disarming and come up with memorable lines.
> None of the list above would fit that bill. Maybe Yvette Cooper might but she won't get it.
> I keep thinking about how the Liberals went from Fallon to Swinson, bad to worse in the eyes of voters, and it looks as if Labour might end up doing the same.


Watford should quickly score 4 now and win the game!


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2019)

Ok, and we probably need another thread for this in due course, but an urgent priory is the articulation of an alternative post-Brexit vision for seizing on whatever opportunity leaving the EU provides.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 14, 2019)

Pmqs, the battleground on which elections are won


----------



## weltweit (Dec 14, 2019)

I think Labour need a good period of reflection before they elect a new leader.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I think Labour need a good period of reflection before they elect a new leader.


Oh i see, in on the conspiracy too eh?


----------



## weltweit (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i see, in on the conspiracy too eh?


Don't know what you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

More evidence


----------



## weltweit (Dec 14, 2019)

Talking in riddles


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Time to build the STARMENTUM!!!


Starmer, the posh london mp, technocrat, and architect of the position that caused labour to not only take a battering but, more importantly, to take that battering in seats that had never gone tory before, sign me up


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Sebastian Payne of the Financial Times


And Durham university so he knows how brexit loving northerners feel


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 14, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Sebastian Payne of the Financial Times



Who clearly needs to check what 'policy' means given the complete lack of them quoted in his thread


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Starmer, the posh london mp, technocrat, and architect of the position that caused labour to not only take a battering but, more importantly, to take that battering in seats that had never gone tory before, sign me up


That would be corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

He's simultaneously a secret leaver _and _the person who imposed an effective remain position on labour. Did you even read the lewis goodall article that you recommended we read?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> He's simultaneously a secret leaver _and _the person who imposed an effective remain position on labour. Did you even read the lewis goodall article that you recommended we read?


I’m not talking about brexit, I’m talking about the fact that the north HATED him.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m not talking about brexit, I’m talking about the fact that the north HATED him.


Why did 'the north hate' him


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m not talking about brexit, I’m talking about the fact that the north HATED him.


What did that article say? It said that he was rather feted until he made the turn to remain  (a position i suspect that you support) and then an attache of ready made reasons to hate him were just to hand (luckily) which then became the stick with which to beat him for his move to a remain position. If you do support remain _he did exactly what you wanted. _


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why did 'the north hate' him


He was always going to lose those heartlands. your typical labour leaver also cares hugely about national security, terrorism. Socially conservative. So even if corbyn supported brexit a lot of people would hated him based on that.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What did that article say? It said that he was rather feted until he made the turn to remain  (a position i suspect that you support) and then an attache of ready made reasons to hate him were just to hand (luckily) which then became the stick with which to beat him for his move to a remain position. If you do support remain _he did exactly what you wanted. _


I had no problem at all personally with corbyns brexit position.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I had no problem at all personally with corbyns brexit position.


So the thing you have no problem with, that caused all the hate you think he should have done. And yet you blame him for doing it? Bizarre.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was always going to lose those heartlands. your typical labour leaver also cares hugely about national security, terrorism. Socially conservative. So even if corbyn supported brexit a lot of people would hated him based on that.


Not as many people would have voted otherwise or abstained on thursday. Not a chance.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> So the thing you have no problem with, that caused all the hate you think he should have done. And yet you blame him for doing it? Bizarre.


That’s not what is causing me hate for him. Think you’ve misunderstood. My problem is that he is never going to appeal to the labour heartlands. And thus we are fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> That’s not what is causing me hate for him. Think you’ve misunderstood. My problem is that he is never going to appeal to the labour heartlands. And thus we are fucked.


He did well enough in 2017. Your article that you recommended goes into this. Then something changed. As the article goes into. What was that thing?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was always going to lose those heartlands. your typical labour leaver also cares hugely about national security, terrorism. Socially conservative. So even if corbyn supported brexit a lot of people would hated him based on that.


So why did labour lose seats they held in '17, what changed?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

And before you say “well neither would middle class remainer Londoner Starmer” - I disagree. I read recently that he’s still really well liked in sedgefield. Let’s face it, a lot of people have very conventional ideas about what politicians should look like. He might not be wildly popular up north but i think people would feel happier voting for a labour led by him.

Ps that Goodall article I posed wasn’t to prove any point. I just thought it was interesting.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> And before you say “well neither would middle class remainer Londoner Starmer” - I disagree. I read recently that he’s still really well liked in sedgefield. Let’s face it, a lot of people have very conventional ideas about what politicians should look like. He might not be wildly popular up north but i think people would feel happier voting for a labour led by him.
> 
> Ps that Goodall article I posed wasn’t to prove any point. I just thought it was interesting.


But you don't seem to have taken anything at all of it on board and are arguing directly against it!


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> So why did labour lose seats they held in '17, what changed?


I think people didn’t know who corbyn was then and were willing to give him a chance. Sure, the brexit stuff was a problem, but I still think even if he’d gone full brexit people would still have voted brexit party/not voted.
(Edited post as original made no sense)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I think people didn’t know who corbyn was then and were willing to give him a chance.



Come on now. He'd been leader for two years and May called the election believing corbyn was so toxic she could get a bigger majority to go soft brexit. You know this is about labour backing a second referendum.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> That would be corbyn



Corbyn who'd opposed EU membership sinnce 1974, before ( regrettably)  caving to immense  pressure re: 2nd Ref in 2019 ?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Come on now. He'd been leader for two years and May called the election believing corbyn was so toxic she could get a bigger majority to go soft brexit. You know this is about labour backing a second referendum.


Ach, I dunno. Maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. It’s all depressing


----------



## MrSki (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Starmer, the posh london mp,


So being the son of a nurse & a toolmaker makes you posh? Or is his poshness just from his career as a barrister?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

MrSki said:


> So being the son of a nurse & a toolmaker makes you posh? Or is his poshness just from his career as a barrister?


Don't you believe in social mobility? It's private school, oxbridge, mp,  Director of Public Prosecutions , Head of the Crown Prosecution Service,  Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath and  Privy Councillor what makes him posh.


----------



## oryx (Dec 14, 2019)

Really hard to say, as someone on Labour's left. Long Bailey might be my preferred choice of those mentioned.

One thing I think is really important is to base the choice on the leader's abilities, politics and potential, not their gender. We shouldn't end up with the wrong choice of leader because of bowing down to pressure to choose a woman. See: some Tory fuckwit crowing about how they would probably have a third woman leader before Labour had their first one; Theresa May doing similar; allegations of Corbyn being a misogynist when he probably had more women in the shadow cabinet than any other leader.

My overriding opinion, though, is 'Anyone but Jess Phillips'.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Seriously, if that's not modern day posh then nothing is.


----------



## MrSki (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Don't you believe in social mobility? It's private school, oxbridge, mp,  Director of Public Prosecutions , Head of the Crown Prosecution Service,  Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath and  Privy Councillor what makes him posh.


So he passed his 11+ & went to what was then a grammar school, then went to Leeds university before doing a post grad at Oxford. Then he had a very successful legal career. Yes being DPP & a KBE does add a bit on the poshness scale but his was not born into poshness.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, if that's not modern day posh then nothing is.


And given we were taking about how a new leader would be perceived by disillusioned former labour voters - posh school, posh uni, posh jobs, posh politics, posh constituency, some sort of fucking knight, of course they're gonna think he's posh, he is posh


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

MrSki said:


> So he passed his 11+ & went to what was then a grammar school, then went to Leeds university before doing a post grad at Oxford. Then he had a very successful legal career. Yes being DPP & a KBE does add a bit on the poshness scale but his was not born into poshness.


But now he is yeah?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Don't you believe in social mobility? It's private school, oxbridge, mp,  Director of Public Prosecutions , Head of the Crown Prosecution Service,  Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath and  Privy Councillor what makes him posh.


Don’t miss out human rights lawyer!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Don’t miss out human rights lawyer!


That noted working class pursuit.


----------



## MrSki (Dec 14, 2019)

Yes I suppose he is but self made posh. Or made posh by his career choices.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

MrSki said:


> Yes I suppose he is but self made posh. Or made posh by his career choices.


That and becoming a knight


----------



## MrSki (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That noted working class pursuit.


Is there anything wrong with someone from a working class background wanting to become a human rights lawyer?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

What’s all the hate for jess Phillips? She’s be my second choice. I keep readig that she’s a blairite but her voting record does not suggest that. Is it just because she didn’t support corbyn? I note that despite Birmingham yardley being a strong leave area, and her pushing the idea of a second ref, her share of the vote barely went down. She could unite the party!


----------



## oryx (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> What’s all the hate for jess Phillips? She’s be my second choice. I keep readig that she’s a blairite but her voting record does not suggest that. Is it just because she didn’t support corbyn? I note that despite Birmingham yardley being a strong leave area, and her pushing the idea of a second ref, her share of the vote barely went down. She could unite the party!



She's a divisive loudmouth.


----------



## MrSki (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> That and becoming a knight


Fair enough. I am no fan of the honours system & I suppose he could/should have refused it.



> While he was awarded a knighthood in 2014 for "services to law and criminal justice" and is therefore entitled to be known as "Sir Keir Starmer", he does not use the title.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

MrSki said:


> Is there anything wrong with someone from a working class background wanting to become a human rights lawyer?


Oh come on ffs. Of course there isn't - why on earth would you even approach me this shit? It insults both of us.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

havent seen whole of thread, but is anyone making a serious case for MALE , middle class, southern, big time Remainer being next Labour Leader ? After what's just happened ??


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> havent seen whole of thread, but is anyone making a serious case for MALE , middle class, southern, big time Remainer being next Labour Leader ? After what's just happened ??


Just say Keir! And yes, there are people doing that.


----------



## MrSki (Dec 14, 2019)

Given the circumstances of the election & with Johnson as PM I think a woman would be better placed as the next leader. I would have liked Laura Pidcock but that isn't going to happen now.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

MrSki said:


> Given the circumstances of the election & with Johnson as PM I think a woman would be better placed as the next leader. I would have liked Laura Pidcock but that isn't going to happen now.



almost has to be a woman anyway, but bearing in mind John McDonnell isn't even in shad cabinet going fwd ( not well apparently - v much hope that's not true tho ) , and Richard Burgon isnt right for it, we have to make a virtue of this, and think female only.

ie : it's RLB vs Rayner ( I wish I had more confidence in Dianne Abbot, I like and respect her loads, despite the private school sh*tshow .... but it's not her thing, surely, just as it wouldn't be 99% of ours ' thing'  ? ).

Jess Phillips leadership could see a mass exodus / possibly a new Party if they ( New Lab mk#2 ) pushed for PR (imo)  .


----------



## maomao (Dec 14, 2019)

MrSki said:


> Given the circumstances of the election & with Johnson as PM I think a woman would be better placed as the next leader. I would have liked Laura Pidcock but that isn't going to happen now.


There's no mad rush to elect the new one immediately and I'm sure they could sneak her in at a bi election.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

maomao said:


> There's no mad rush to elect the new one immediately and I'm sure they could sneak her in at a bi election.



Corbo gone straight away in the NY - there's many a Lab MP I'd be happy to see open up a bye - election opportunity before then, but it's a long shot.

+ , its way too early for Laura P - she'll be the first back via a bye election, and then hopefully have 4 yrs + on shadow benches before getting leadership 2024 ( same year as AoC ?  - sounding like some kind of misty eyed,pan atlantic reformist polito fantasy now )

( I'll have deets of timeline tmmrw night / maybe we all will )


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Corbo gone straight away in the NY - there's many a Lab MP I'd be happy to see open up a bye - election opportunity before then, but it's a long shot


You saying you think he'll stand down as an MP? I can't see that. His life would be over. Dead in the allotment shed ODed on elderberry wine within 6 months.


----------



## seeformiles (Dec 14, 2019)

If I had ambitions to be PM, then being elected replacement leader in the immediate aftermath of defeat and presiding over the in-fighting is a bit of a poisoned chalice (William Hague, IDS). Get a fall guy in, then see which way the wind blows before throwing your hat into the ring.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You saying you think he'll stand down as an MP? I can't see that. His life would be over. Dead in the allotment shed ODed on elderberry wine within 6 months.



lol, no chance, he's going to be a ledge on the back benches, and whatever you think of him, you know he ain't going anywhere near that shithouse Lords - but read / heard ( can't remember ) it's out asap in NY ( has to be anyway, otherwise it's just ammo )


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

seeformiles said:


> If I had ambitions to be PM, then being elected replacement leader in the immediate aftermath of defeat and presiding over the in-fighting is a bit of a poisoned chalice (William Hague, IDS). Get a fall guy in, then see which way the wind blows before throwing your hat into the ring.



I think / thought it's John McD as interim


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> havent seen whole of thread, but is anyone making a serious case for MALE , middle class, southern, big time Remainer being next Labour Leader ? After what's just happened ??


Being MALE, middle class and southern didn’t stop Johnson taking seats off labour.


----------



## oryx (Dec 14, 2019)

Why do they have to be a WOMAN?

Why not a BAME or working class person?

It's much more important to get the leader right than impose an (informal) gender requirement.

FWIW I do see the a lot of leaders in this race as being women (Long Bailey and Rayner mainly) so this may be a redundant argument.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> What’s all the hate for jess Phillips? She’s be my second choice. I keep readig that she’s a blairite but her voting record does not suggest that. Is it just because she didn’t support corbyn? I note that despite Birmingham yardley being a strong leave area, and her pushing the idea of a second ref, her share of the vote barely went down. She could unite the party!



She doesn't really have any politics. She's about Jess Phillips. A feminist who took part in horrid online bullying of Diane Abbott. She would stab her grandmother (in the front) if it would get her the cover on the Observer Magazine. Has said much more nice stuff about Rees fucking Mogg than most of the Shadow Cabinet. I had to read her biography in my book group and she revealed some attitudes I think should disqualify you from being a Labour MP, my favourite example is she slagged off a Tory MP for 'only' having worked in a supermarket before he got elected while she was clever and had been a charity manager. Yuck.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> Jess Phillips leadership could see a mass exodus / possibly a new Party if they ( New Lab mk#2 ) pushed for PR (imo)  .



Still don’t get the Phillips hate. Can somebody show me a concrete example of what she’s done wrong? (Apart from not back corbyn).

Edit - I see someone has above...


----------



## oryx (Dec 14, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> She doesn't really have any politics. She's about Jess Phillips. A feminist who took part in horrid online bullying of Diane Abbott. She would stab her grandmother (in the front) if it would get her the cover on the Observer Magazine. Has said much more nice stuff about Rees fucking Mogg than most of the Shadow Cabinet. I had to read her biography in my book group and she revealed some attitudes I think should disqualify you from being a Labour MP, my favourite example is she slagged off a Tory MP for 'only' having worked in a supermarket before he got elected while she was clever and had been a charity manager. Yuck.



^ all of this, well said Plumdaff


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 14, 2019)

Who would be the interim leader if Corbyn was to stand down immediately? (I actually thought it would be Watson 'cos I'd forgotten he'd stood down as deputy leader.)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Still don’t get the Phillips hate. Can somebody show me a concrete example of what she’s done wrong? (Apart from not back corbyn).
> 
> Edit - I see someone has above...


Strike two


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Still don’t get the Phillips hate. Can somebody show me a concrete example of what she’s done wrong? (Apart from not back corbyn).
> 
> Edit - I see someone has above...



won't bore you, there's shit loadsof it online, obvs- but, politics aside,  this from thurs sums up a large part of the problem : narcissistic fraud


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> Who would be the interim leader if Corbyn was to stand down immediately? (I actually thought it would be Watson 'cos I'd forgotten he'd stood down as deputy leader.)



I thought i heard it was John McDonn, v short term


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Just (briefly) googled the Diane Abbott thing and didn’t see any online bullying. Just something about apparently telling her to fuck off. Is that it?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> won't bore you, there's shit loadsof it online, obvs- but, politics aside,  this from thurs sums up a large part of the problem : narcissistic fraud



Hahahaha! Oops.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Just (briefly) googled the Diane Abbott thing and didn’t see any online bullying. Just something about apparently telling her to fuck off. Is that it?



That's some of it. She lied about telling Abbott to 'fuck off' because she thought that would look good to her mates in the media, I can't trawl through Twitter but I've witnessed her there and on telly agree with and join in with people slagging her off. Then you'll get some pious words from her about women supporting women and how she'll always back up her sisters. She's honestly, genuinely bloody awful.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

She was good in porridge though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

Just as an aside, people with usernames like tankiejack supporting labour online, what a time to be alive


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> won't bore you, there's shit loadsof it online, obvs- but, politics aside,  this from thurs sums up a large part of the problem : narcissistic fraud



All piss in the same pot don't they - private school and oxbridge krishnan and pretend voice of the w/c jess.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Just (briefly) googled the Diane Abbott thing and didn’t see any online bullying. Just something about apparently telling her to fuck off. Is that it?



DA - Graun : " *Jess Phillips MP *never told me to fuck off. What was extraordinary is that she made a big deal about telling people she had. Nobody ever checked back with me. If they had I’d have said no, she didn’t. "

its just endless with Phillips, from the lies about her background / husband / wealth etc, to this kind of mindless bullshit - cynicism and dishonesty seem to define her - on more practical level, from the " I'm going to stab him in the front" claim onwards, her attention-desperate opposition to Corbyn from the get go means she has zero chance with current membership


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just as an aside, people with usernames like tankiejack supporting labour online, what a time to be alive



There's always been tankies in the Labour Party. I don't see the problem.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2019)

I think it'll be Rayner. Compelling evidence:

- McDonnell said the next leader should be a woman

- Troooomp is consistently wrong about everything and she's not in the poll

8/1 odds currently, I reckon that might be worth a punt.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> There's always been tankies in the Labour Party. I don't see the problem.


Yeah, but they used to have to call themselves _peoples peace front_ or _across borders love venture_ or something. I'd be quite happy if they were forced to do that again instead of being proud. The arseholes.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2019)

Angela 'Not An Actual' Eagle is 215/1. If someone can find The People's Brick again I reckon we could narrow that considerably.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

Hope not David Lammy, and now Richard Burgon, loose cannon.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was so good in the mclibel documentary!
> 
> And he’s no blairite either:
> Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force





fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was so good in the mclibel documentary!
> 
> And he’s no blairite either:
> Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force



Starmers last act as DPP was to bring in a maximum 10 year stretch for benefit fraud, nice

though not sure if it was for conspiracy, gangs etc,


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

> Making a relic of the Blair era leader won't bring back Labour's success from the Blair era. You might as well make Clem Atlee's hat leader and hope for the best. Or do you like her sensible centrist politics - capitalism with a smiley face - the sort of politics that did worse than Labour on Thursday?





 Cooper, who apparently had M.E for a year was responsible for ATOS, the wheelchair test, ESA sanctions, she is hard right afaic, no amount of pro identity politics can change that, if she is leader, i am out.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> This is interesting from Lewis Goodall
> General election: Corbyn's greatest failure is not providing a left-wing alternative to Brexit



I watch Sky News a lot, Goodall appears to have some real insights, they also did a long series into the deprived parts of the UK.


----------



## maomao (Dec 14, 2019)

I think Liz Kendal should run again. We all need a fucking laugh.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> I watch Sky News a lot, Goodall appears to have some real insights, they also did a long series into the deprived parts of the UK.


Lewis Goodall for labour leader!


----------



## philosophical (Dec 14, 2019)

Well it looks to me like there isn't a suggested person that someone on here does not dislike for one reason or another.
Maybe it is about the purity of driven snow.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 14, 2019)

RLB will be the current leadership's preference, won't she? Whether that helps her more than it hinders her I don't know. Seems intelligent and quick thinking but rather cold and robotic - can't see her winning wider public approval.

The 'Corbynism proven a failure' lobby will no doubt want Starmer. I don't think he's the most unpleasant of the centrists but he'd be a disaster, and anyway he'd not get majority support from the current membership, would he?

I'd probably vote Rayner if I had such a vote to use. Though really, does she have the experience? (I know, paradox, because so many of those with long service are fucking awful - so whoever it is will be relatively green.)

Burgon seems thick as mince - wouldn't even mention him if they hadn't - mystifyingly - seen fit to put him up for the TV debate.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

RLB seems intelligent?! 

She’s so scripted.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> won't bore you, there's shit loadsof it online, obvs- but, politics aside,  this from thurs sums up a large part of the problem : narcissistic fraud




One of the Twitter comments - ‘Total sociopath!’

Either way she’s a crass loud mouth mess.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 14, 2019)

Her nickname is Rebecca Wrong-Daily, and she has made some howlers, but the field is not  exactly replete with fantastic performers with the right(ish) politics, remain/leave balance, and who can appeal to both the membership - or half of it - and the world outside.

I think their biggest problem is who will put themselves forward - and who decides to sit out the shit show.


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 14, 2019)

Labour has managed to paper over its cracks a lot more successfully than the Tories of late. However given the sheer magnitude of their failure at the election things are going to come to the fore, The centrists will want to purge the leftists, the leftists will want to purge the centrists. There will be enough blame for everyone. I don't have any idea who will be the next Labour leader but he/she is going to have a lot of work  to do if they want to be remotely ready for the next election.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

I predict it may be Lisa Nandy.

its not because of her politics, but that she has real emotional intelligence.

plus up against the bluster of Johnson at PMQ's it will really show.


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

The race begins … and the next Labour leader is likely to be a woman

yvette cooper, nfc!"



> But , also writing in this paper, Labour MPs Lucy Powell and Shabana Mahmood, who held their seats of Manchester Central and Birmingham Ladywood, urge the party not to indulge in a bitter blame game, and instead to work together to learn the lessons for the long term.



blimey, didn't see Lucy Powell as a peacemaker, good call though.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 14, 2019)

Wow, Gloria De Piero absolutely nails it in an impassioned interview with Channel 4.

‘The Labour Party lets people down.’

And regarding choosing a new leader:

‘You can’t have somebody  from London’ (backs Lisa Nandy).


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 14, 2019)

Re: Jess Phillips - she's the British Justin Trudeau except her black face is 'working class'


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2019)

Apparently there has been a Nandy For Leader twitter page since 2011, she was 32 then!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> Apparently there has been a Nandy For Leader twitter page since 2011, she was 32 then!


She was the rebecca long-bailey or laura pidcock of the miliband era, pumped up as a future leader, owen jones wanted her on the ballot in 2015 as a soft left compromise the left could work with instead of standing its own candidate.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

Why not from London, if that happens to be where the best candidate is from? Bozo is from London and that hasn’t stopped him taking northern seats.

The leader before corbyn wasn’t from London and he didn’t do very well either as I recall...


----------



## oryx (Dec 14, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Why not from London, if it happens that that is where the best candidate is from? Bozo is from London and that hasn’t stopped him taking northern seats.
> 
> The leader before corbyn wasn’t from London and he didn’t do very well either as I recall...



I agree with your first sentence but Ed Milliband was from London (although his seat was in the north).


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 14, 2019)

oryx said:


> I agree with your first sentence but Ed Milliband was from London (although his seat was in the north).


Fair enough, I meant where the seat was based rather than where the MP grew up.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 14, 2019)

Alf


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Why not from London, if it happens that that is where the best candidate is from? Bozo is from London and that hasn’t stopped him taking northern seats.
> 
> The leader before corbyn wasn’t from London and he didn’t do very well either as I recall...



cultural/identity thing - if the prime focus for a new leader is to make up with the midlands/northern working class, who walked away because london-centric, remainy politicians stopped listening to them, then it would help enormously if the new leader were not from that exact same london-centric remainy stable. 

pretty much the entire senior leadership of new Labour had seats in the north - Blair, Mandleson etc.. but that made little difference to their london-centric attitudes.

some sackcloth and ashes are required.


----------



## oryx (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> cultural/identity thing - if the prime focus for a new leader is to make up with the midlands/northern working class, who walked away because london-centric, remainy politicians stopped listening to them, then it would help enormously if the new leader were not from that exact same london-centric remainy stable.



But as fakeplasticgirl pointed out, Johnson was/is popular in the north and midlands and you can't get a much more London/South-centric/privileged fucker than that sack of old Etonian, faux Churchillian shite.

It's about positions on Brexit, not geography.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

oryx said:


> But as fakeplasticgirl pointed out, Johnson was/is popular in the north and midlands and you can't get a much more London/South-centric/privileged fucker than that sack of old Etonian, faux Churchillian shite.
> 
> It's about positions on Brexit, not geography.



you miss the point, Johnson can be southern and privilaged because he listened to them, Labour however have to go through this sackcloth and ashes routine purely because they didn't listen to them.

have you never tried to repair a relationship before? its hamming it up, being a bit ott, sackcloth and ashes, paying huge amounts of attention, showing them that they matter, that you really want to be with them. its not a return to business as usual with some minor tweaks and an apology.


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> She was the rebecca long-bailey or laura pidcock of the miliband era, pumped up as a future leader, owen jones wanted her on the ballot in 2015 as a soft left compromise the left could work with instead of standing its own candidate.


she's the ed miliband for our generation. got the right voice, wont scare the bosses too much. a move back to the right


----------



## tedsplitter (Dec 15, 2019)

Angela Rayner, man. She would tear lumps out of Johnson and co.


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 15, 2019)

tedsplitter said:


> Angela Rayner, man. She would tear lumps out of Johnson and co.



She seems the only viable option out of the obvious.


----------



## oryx (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> you miss the point, Johnson can be southern and privilaged because he listened to them, Labour however have to go through this sackcloth and ashes routine purely because they didn't listen to them.
> 
> have you never tried to repair a relationship before? its hamming it up, being a bit ott, sackcloth and ashes, paying huge amounts of attention, showing them that they matter, that you really want to be with them. its not a return to business as usual with some minor tweaks and an apology.



No, I think you've missed the point - the point AFAICS was about where a potential leader comes from and not whether they (supposedly) listened to people or not.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

I'll get a vote through my union and at this point from the likely candidates I'd go rayner, not exactly enthusiastically as it stands tbh, more lack of alternatives. Who knows though, maybe as time goes on and things become clearer that will become more enthusiastic (or change) or it might be such a shitshow I don't bother and get round to opting out of political levy (I always meant to pre '15)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

oryx said:


> No, I think you've missed the point - the point AFAICS was about where a potential leader comes from and not whether they (supposedly) listened to people or not.


It's not the most important thing in isolation, a candidate that ticked other boxes - leave or at least accepting of result, able to communicate with and listen to working class constituency etc - who represented a london constituency wouldn't be a poor choice because of the latter. But in this case we are taking about starmer so being a london MP (for a mostly posh central london constituency) is basically a full house of bad fucking idea


----------



## oryx (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's not the most important thing in isolation, a candidate that ticked other boxes - leave or at least accepting of result, able to communicate with and listen to working class constituency etc - who represented a london constituency wouldn't be a poor choice because of the latter. But in this case we are taking about starmer so being a london MP (for a mostly posh central london constituency) is basically a full house of bad fucking idea



But that wouldn't be due to Starmer being from London per se, it would be about Starmer's position on Brexit and his communication abilities. I wasn't aware that this particular part of this debate was around Starmer TBH.

And if Johnson is able to listen to and communicate with w/c people I'm a giraffe. He hides from them!


----------



## tim (Dec 15, 2019)

Yvette Cooper must stand a good chance. She's a very competent public performer; represents a Northern constituency, is untainted by links with Corbyn and female.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

oryx said:


> But that wouldn't be due to Starmer being from London per se, it would be about Starmer's position on Brexit and his communication abilities. I wasn't aware that this particular part of this debate was around Starmer TBH.
> 
> And if Johnson is able to listen to and communicate with w/c people I'm a giraffe. He hides from them!


Johnson won't remain popular obviously, tbh not convinced he's popular now outside of a minority. He campaigned, before and after becoming PM, on a position of leaving the EU come what may, that's what worked. But we're taking about what labour will have to do to win back alienated support not what the tories did to win the GE, and the criticisms made of labour in those areas were  - brexit; corbyn as an individual; labour too london and out of touch beyond that; we've always voted labour and what has it delivered for us. As I said, being a london MP not in isolation the problem but when added to other factors it is.

Think this particular debate cul de sac started from me calling starmer a posh london MP fwiw.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Yvette Cooper must stand a good chance. She's a very competent public performer; represents a Northern constituency, is untainted by links with Corbyn and female.


And with zero chance of being elected by the membership on account of being a blairite


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> That's some of it. She lied about telling Abbott to 'fuck off' because she thought that would look good to her mates in the media, I can't trawl through Twitter but I've witnessed her there and on telly agree with and join in with people slagging her off. Then you'll get some pious words from her about women supporting women and how she'll always back up her sisters. She's honestly, genuinely bloody awful.


I think she's awful too, though there's a bit of me that can't help liking her (a bit). She does this performance of authentic emotional plain speaking, a sort of articulate non-politician talk - but which is ultimately her own politician talk. She won't get the job, though I suspect she do a good job of exposing Johnson at pmqs at least until the voters get sick of her schtick.


----------



## oryx (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> And with zero chance of being elected by the membership on account of being a blairite



Yes, and ditto Starmer (not the Blairite thing but too centrist for the membership IMHO).

I don't think it should matter where an MP comes from, or what gender they are - it's their politics that are the important thing, and how they get them across.

I do wonder if there is some resentment about MPs being 'parachuted in' to safe seats, often in the north and midlands. I haven't sat there and analysed how this affected the last election in terms of who lost their seats, and I don't intend to. I am a woman and a diehard feminist, but I do wonder about all woman shortlists and whether breaking down barriers to women becoming MPs, e.g. issues over voting (Tulip Siddiq comes to mind), maternity leave, childcare, MPs hours etc. etc. would be a better way.

ETA and the sexist culture of the HOC.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> *Her nickname is Rebecca Wrong-Daily*, and she has made some howlers, but the field is not  exactly replete with fantastic performers with the right(ish) politics, remain/leave balance, and who can appeal to both the membership - or half of it - and the world outside.


Is it? Where?


tim said:


> Yvette Cooper must stand a good chance. She's a very competent public performer; represents a Northern constituency, is untainted by links with Corbyn and female.


What PT too tarred with the New Labour years. The LP will probably move to the right but there is no appetite (beyond a few wankers like Akehurst) for the party to go back to the politics of New Labour.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Is it? Where?



Amongst the ‘anyone but corbyn’ crowd. (Yes a lot of whom are wankers)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

I'm no expert on these matters, but does RLB not realise that Burgon comes across as a quarter-wit oaf? Why saddle herself with that loser?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Burgon apparently has been a very good advocate for bereaved families/on the issues around inquests into deaths in care


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Burgon apparently has been a very good advocate for bereaved families/on the issues around inquests into deaths in care


Which I'm glad that you've brought to my attention and is a great credit to him as an MP.
Does not necessarily mean that, if I were a member, I'd chose him to Deputise for the leadership of the party.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

Burgon took time off from campaigning to come down and support UCU strikes. Benn nowhere to be seen.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Burgon took time off from campaigning to come down and support UCU strikes. Benn nowhere to be seen.


Again creditable (& I'm showing my ignorance of his various merits)...but...deputy leader, really?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

belboid said:


> she's the ed miliband for our generation. got the right voice, wont scare the bosses too much. a move back to the right



Concretely how is Nandy a move ‘to the right’? 

I’ve watched two interviews with her now and don’t sense any sense of resiling from the key social democratic policy ideas.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Which I'm glad that you've brought to my attention and is a great credit to him as an MP.
> Does not necessarily mean that, if I were a member, I'd chose him to Deputise for the leadership of the party.



He’d be a disaster as deputy leader.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 15, 2019)

Caroline Flint put the boot into Thornberry this morning by telling how Thornberry, pushing for a second referendum told one of Flint’s colleagues that, ‘she (Thornberry) was glad she didn’t have constituents as stupid as yours’.
Not shocked!


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Yvette Cooper must stand a good chance. She's a very competent public performer; represents a Northern constituency, is untainted by links with Corbyn and female.



Er, did you see my post about her history on social security?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

What’s nandy been like on social security?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Concretely how is Nandy a move ‘to the right’?
> 
> I’ve watched two interviews with her now and don’t sense any sense of resiling from the key social democratic policy ideas.


Her voting record on wealth redistribution through tax is shit


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Again creditable (& I'm showing my ignorance of his various merits)...but...deputy leader, really?


Well what do you want from the (deputy) leader to the LP? What is the purpose of the leader of the LP and for who?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Burgons on sky now. 

He’s seen as a nutter (and a bit thick)


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s nandy been like on social security?



Almost always voted for paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to *illness or disability*


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Concretely how is Nandy a move ‘to the right’?
> 
> I’ve watched two interviews with her now and don’t sense any sense of resiling from the key social democratic policy ideas.


She served in the pro-austerity shadow cabinet, she resigned from most left wing shadow cabinet in decades to sack Smiths tilt at the leadership. She's in no sense on the right of the party but belboid is right that she's very much from the same political space as Miliband.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Her voting record on wealth redistribution through tax is shit



What votes? When?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

And Nandy abstained on the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill.

She's made a number of the right sounds but when things are actually on the line she's toed right again and again.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Well what do you want from the (deputy) leader to the LP? What is the purpose of the leader of the LP and for who?


I suppose members would hope for someone capable of supporting the leadership as a clear, convincing advocate of the policy platform and all-round attack dog when necessary?
Not a figure of fun.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I suppose members would hope for someone capable of supporting the leadership as a clear, convincing advocate of the policy platform and all-round attack dog when necessary?
> Not a figure of fun.


And your aims are the same aims as Labour members?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Yep, Corbyn showed no signs of any leadership since the 2015 GE.





kebabking said:


> I _think _is was one of the blogs posted here from the Isle of White CLP that described Corbyn acting much more like an Honourary Chairman of a worthy charity than as the Leader of a political party. Seems a fair description...


Posted on the Corbyn thread but relevant to point I'm making above. What do people want from a LP leader? 

I don't think my interest, as a communist, are the same as either of the posters I've quoted.


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> And Nandy abstained on the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
> 
> She's made a number of the right sounds but when things are actually on the line she's toed right again and again.



didn't know that, i am going to write to her.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> And Nandy abstained on the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
> 
> She's made a number of the right sounds but when things are actually on the line she's toed right again and again.



Fair enough. But she comes over as extremely coherent on the need to reconnect labour to working class leave areas and communities.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> And Nandy abstained on the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
> 
> She's made a number of the right sounds but when things are actually on the line she's toed right again and again.


I think she was late stage pregnant then tbf


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Posted on the Corbyn thread but relevant to point I'm making above. What do people want from a LP leader?
> 
> I don't think my interest, as a communist, are the same as either of the posters I've quoted.



The leader of a party gets to choose, and stand by that choice. That is what they are paid for.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> And your aims are the same aims as Labour members?


Dunno; quite possibly not.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Nandy. A bit blue laboury? 

Blue Labour – Forging a New Politics – Manchester, Saturday 26 November 2016


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> What do people want from a LP leader?.



Im not a member. I’m normally not even a supporter. 

But, basically, if Labour don’t elect a leader who a) will develop and embed the key social democratic policy commitments and continue the step away from neo-liberal orthodoxy and b) finds a way to popularise these ideas in working class communities in towns and cities, north and south, among young and old then they are over.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What votes? When?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Nandy. A bit blue laboury?
> 
> Blue Labour – Forging a New Politics – Manchester, Saturday 26 November 2016



There were also UKIP MEPs speaking at that event. 

Look, I’m not a member. I don’t get a vote. 

My comments about Nandy are based on the simple premise that seems to have a coherent narrative of what went wrong.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I think she was late stage pregnant then tbf


Didn't know that. Seems you are correct and afterwards she did make this statement. So fair play to her on that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Didn't know that. Seems you are correct and afterwards she did make this statement. So fair play to her on that.


Yeah she's pretty good on benefits & welfare I think


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

The LP could really do without this cunt and his stupid voters tropes.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There were also UKIP MEPs speaking at that event.
> 
> Look, I’m not a member. I don’t get a vote.
> 
> My comments about Nandy are based on the simple premise that seems to have a coherent narrative of what went wrong.



I guess I see the same strengths (as it were) and have the same concerns of LN as others on this thread. Also not a member.

I’m also aware of my own er vulnerabilities to the kind of ‘economically socialist, culturally conservative’ schtick (ie my hatred of a university radical types) that others might be happy to go along with.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> (ie my hatred of a university radical types) .





brogdale said:


> The LP could really do without this cunt and his stupid voters tropes.
> 
> View attachment 193055



And cunts like that


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> The leader of a party gets to choose, and stand by that choice. That is what they are paid for.


Choose what? Everything. Nevermind the views of the membership?

brogdale see this is what I was trying to get at above. I think KK's view of leadership is not just wrong it's opposed to the principles of socialism.
It's the viewpoint that puts union bosses in charge of the decisions of industrial disputes rather than striking workers. It may or may not be a helpful viewpoint to the LP but it's a harmful one to workers.

The views of what makes a good leader for the LP are inseparable from what one views the purpose of the LP is.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> She served in the pro-austerity shadow cabinet, she resigned from most left wing shadow cabinet in decades to sack Smiths tilt at the leadership. She's in no sense on the right of the party but belboid is right that she's very much from the same political space as Miliband.



That's definitely where the party will end up if they don't select another left wing leader isn't it. When Corbyn was elected the runner up wasn't the Blairite (what did she get - 5% of the vote or something), it was Andy Burnham. Pretty much a like for like Miliband replacement. That's where they'd be without Corbyn not the Blairite right.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That's definitely where the party will end up if they don't select another left wing leader isn't it. When Corbyn was elected the runner up wasn't the Blairite (what did she get - 5% of the vote or something), it was Andy Burnham. Pretty much a like for like Miliband replacement. That's where they'd be without Corbyn not the Blairite right.



With a left wing memebership wouldn’t it be difficult to ditch an established left wing party platform?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Posted on the Corbyn thread but relevant to point I'm making above. What do people want from a LP leader?
> 
> I don't think my interest, as a communist, are the same as either of the posters I've quoted.



I was going to ask the same on the other thread. What is this 'good leader' ?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Choose what? Everything. Nevermind the views of the membership?
> 
> brogdale see this is what I was trying to get at above. I think KK's view of leadership is not just wrong it's opposed to the principles of socialism.
> It's the viewpoint that puts union bosses in charge of the decisions of industrial disputes rather than striking workers. It may or may not be a helpful viewpoint to the LP but it's a harmful one to workers.
> ...



The leader of the party has to tell the membership when they are wrong - he's not just a cypher, he's a leader, a follower, sometimes a cypher, a persuader and an ambassador: his job is to persuade the electorate of the memberships views, as well as listen to the electorate and tell the membership when they are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Choose what? Everything. Nevermind the views of the membership?
> 
> brogdale see this is what I was trying to get at above. I think KK's view of leadership is not just wrong it's opposed to the principles of socialism.
> It's the viewpoint that puts union bosses in charge of the decisions of industrial disputes rather than striking workers. It may or may not be a helpful viewpoint to the LP but it's a harmful one to workers.
> ...


Yeah, I suppose I was just engaging with speculating about the leadership on the basis of individual(s) charged with leading a social democratic party seeking electoral success. Nothing more than that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> The leader of the party has to tell the membership when they are wrong - he's not just a cypher, he's a leader, a follower, sometimes a cypher, a persuader and an ambassador: his job is to persuade the electorate of the memberships views, as well as listen to the electorate and tell the membership when they are barking up the wrong tree.


Hang on you've gone from _choose_ to _persuade_. There's a significant difference between those two.
I have no problem with a general secretary trying to persuade members of a course action, but the final decision should rest with the membership.



brogdale said:


> Yeah, I suppose I was just engaging with speculating about the leadership on the basis of individual(s) charged with leading a social democratic party seeking electoral success. Nothing more than that.


Yeah, no problem with that, chatting about stuff in net is fine. But in the wider picture I think this concentration on _leadership_ is not just useless but harmful for the movement.

The Russian revolution lost its way when the Party took power from the soviets, the Spanish Revolution lost its way when the political "leadership" of the republic took control from the militias etc, unions lost their way when union bureaucracies took power away from workers.

I'm not an LP member, I'm not even a member of an affiliated union but if I was I'd vote for the person who would do best for workers not the one who'd do best for the LP. There's not going to be a candidate running on a platform of direct democracy but of there was that person would be a better "leader" for me than anyone else despite the fact that such a platform would probably tear the party apart.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I guess I see the same strengths (as it were) and have the same concerns of LN as others on this thread. Also not a member.
> 
> I’m also aware of my own er vulnerabilities to the kind of ‘economically socialist, culturally conservative’ schtick (ie my hatred of a university radical types) that others might be happy to go along with.



I need to flesh this out a bit more but here is what I think the next LP leader should be/do:

1. Listen to the working class. In all places. Of all ages.
2. Engage with the working class on the basis of what it is, and what it’s priories are, rather than what the left thinks it is.
3. Direct all member and financial resources to rebuilding local progressive politics and non-state networks: unions, community associations, sports clubs, food banks, branches etc etc
4. Re-embed collective ideas and social democratic politics. Strengthen shared cultural and social repertoires from the bottom up
5. Transform Labour into a ‘non-London’ Party. Devolve as much power as possible down and away from the possessors of cultural and social capital
6. More MPs and candidates from working class backgrounds. Instant right of recall for local parties over their candidates if they vote against the consensus of local constituents and members 
7. Develop policy on the key issues: work, public services, infrastructure, the environment, housing, crime through the above rather than policy types
8. Build a social movement of millions - rooted in the class


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I need to flesh this out a bit more but here is what I think the next LP leader should be/do:
> 
> 1. Listen to the working class. In all places. Of all ages.
> 2. Engage with the working class on the basis of what it is, and what it’s priories are, rather than what the left thinks it is.
> ...



Yeah I’m pretty much my thoughts, but with a close eye on any developments that equate ‘non-london’ with anti-immigration/‘cosmopolitans’ crap


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not an LP member, I'm not even a member of an affiliated union but if I was I'd vote for the person who would do best for workers not the one who'd do best for the LP. There's not going to be a candidate running on a platform of direct democracy but of there was that person would be a better "leader" for me than anyone else despite the fact that such a platform would probably tear the party apart.



I think a lot of us on here would agree with that.

The union I’m active in is the biggest affiliate. The full timers and lay hacks backing RLB or Rayner never pose their appeal on that basis. I’ll be interested to see what all of the candidates say but I don’t care what wing or endorsements they have if they aren’t committed to strengthening, embedding and most of all rebuilding the conditions for working class agency and self-determination I’ll be opposing them


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I need to flesh this out a bit more but here is what I think the next LP leader should be/do:
> 
> 2. Engage with the working class on the basis of what it is, and what it’s priories are, rather than what the left thinks it is.



And this will involve finding a way of having a commitment to social security that also recognises how utterly shit it is to be ‘looked after’ (I’ve spent a lot of my life being ‘cared for’. It’s not fun)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah I’m pretty much my thoughts, but with a close eye on any developments that equate ‘non-london’ with anti-immigration/‘cosmopolitans’ crap



Scum like Mason and Novara want to turn this into a ‘culture war’ where pro working class ideas can be painted as racist or ‘blue labour’. At the same time they seek an accommodation with centrists  

Their agenda cannot be emphasised and understood enough in my view


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Scum like Mason and Novara want to turn this into a ‘culture war’ where pro working class ideas can be painted as racist or ‘blue labour’. At the same time they seek an accommodation with centrists
> 
> Their agenda cannot be emphasised and understood enough in my view



Well yeah, the culture war shite comes from both sides. 

Plus I know I need to learn from my own mistakes around ‘identity’


----------



## kenny g (Dec 15, 2019)

After voting for Ed Milliband based on union recommendation I am definitely going to research to the upmost before casting my vote this time. Corbyn was the best of a very bad bunch. Barry Gardiner is a total and utter disaster.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And this will involve finding a way of having a commitment to social security that also recognises how utterly shit it is to be ‘looked after’ (I’ve spent a lot of my life being ‘cared for’. It’s not fun)



This is the one thing about the LP and it’s vocal supporters that most boils the piss of my workmates .

They don’t see themselves as victims. They don’t see their lives as shit. They don’t want to be looked after.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is the one thing about the LP and it’s vocal supporters that most boils the piss of my workmates .
> 
> They don’t see themselves as victims. They don’t see their lives as shit. They don’t want to be looked after.



“The 1970s were great”. Er what?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

As an aside, there’s a lot of weird nostalgia for the old mental institutions within ‘the disabled people’s movement’.

And you just know that any future campaigns around the NHS will be dominated by professionals and their paternalistic politics.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 15, 2019)

Just to add, I would be highly suspicious of making labour "non-london". Don't turn your back on your core support. It is fantastic that the Lib Dems didn't get a shoe in in the capital beyond kicking a Tory out. 

People need to understand that the rejection of Labour included a rejection of Corbyn due partly to his perceived lack of support for the military. There needs to be a clear labour defence policy fully supporting the use of the armed forces as we face the full impact of climate change. Significant pay increases should be available along with a home for heroes policy.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Careful now


----------



## kenny g (Dec 15, 2019)

Completely agree about the rejection of "oxfam politics". People give money to oxfam they don't vote for it.


----------



## oryx (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> The leader of the party has to tell the membership when they are wrong - he's not just a cypher, he's a leader, a follower, sometimes a cypher, a persuader and an ambassador: his job is to persuade the electorate of the memberships views, as well as listen to the electorate and tell the membership when they are barking up the wrong tree.


'He'??


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 15, 2019)

kenny g said:


> People need to understand that the rejection of Labour included a rejection of Corbyn due partly to his perceived lack of support for the military. There needs to be a clear labour defence policy fully supporting the use of the armed forces as we face the full impact of climate change. Significant pay increases should be available along with a home for heroes policy.


Home for what now?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

oryx said:


> 'He'??



I'm pretty sure Corbyn is a he.


----------



## oryx (Dec 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I'm pretty sure Corbyn is a he.


Thought you were talking about a potential leader rather than Corbyn.


----------



## rekil (Dec 15, 2019)

Dua Lipa. If she can bat away the inevitable hobbyist accusations.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

Alistair Campbell. Labour for full rejoin


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> With a left wing memebership wouldn’t it be difficult to ditch an established left wing party platform?



Yeah sure. I think if there ends up being an 'anointed successor' candidate they'd probably win given the membership. I just don't think the idea that it's either a Corbynite or Blairite candidate - someone from that Miliband type background will be trying to sell themselves as left enough, in a way an outright Blairite couldn't.


----------



## tim (Dec 15, 2019)

treelover said:


> Er, did you see my post about her history on social security?



The question is not who I want, buy who will be the next Labour Leader.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 15, 2019)

Shit poll, the correct answer is Angela Rayner.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 15, 2019)

They need to get a big movie star, comedian or an intelligent  footballer, say Gary Linerker or sporting hero like Frank Bruno, or hit the ejevt button David Icke


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 15, 2019)

extra dry said:


> They need to get a big movie star, comedian or an intelligent  footballer, say Gary Linerker or sporting hero like Frank Bruno, or hit the ejevt button David Icke



I'd vote for Frank Bruno.

Lineker on the other hand is a fucking bellend.


----------



## chilango (Dec 15, 2019)

Throw money at the SNP to sign Sturgeon.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

chilango said:


> Throw money at the SNP to sign Sturgeon.


Probably wouldn't want the SNP's previous leader...


----------



## Sue (Dec 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd vote for Frank Bruno.
> 
> Lineker on the other hand is a fucking bellend.


Was he (Bruno) not a Tory..?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 15, 2019)

Sue said:


> Was he (Bruno) not a Tory..?



I dunno I just remember he was good at beating people up when I was a kid, and I admired that.

I've got a signed copy of his autobiography but I've never read it.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Shit poll, the correct answer is Angela Rayner.


I quite like her and she fits the bill - northern, female and working class. She also didn't vote for Corbyn which will be a plus for some on the centre/righjt of the party. But what's she like on handling policy briefs etc? Genuine Q, I have a vague feeling she's fucked up her education brief in interviews?


----------



## Sue (Dec 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I dunno I just remember he was good at beating people up when I was a kid, and I admired that.
> 
> I've got a signed copy of his autobiography but I've never read it.


In January 2001, Bruno announced that he wanted to stand as the Conservativecandidate in the traditionally safe Tory seat of Brentwood and Ongar against the independent Member of Parliament, Martin Bell. His proposed slogan was "Don't be a plank, vote for Frank!" However, this idea was quickly dismissed by Conservative Central Office.[13][14] In an interview with BBC Sport at the time, Bruno laughed at the story and denied he had any intention of standing.

Frank Bruno - Wikipedia


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I quite like her and she fits the bill - northern, female and working class. She also didn't vote for Corbyn which will be a plus for some on the centre/righjt of the party. But what's she like on handling policy briefs etc? Genuine Q, I have a vague feeling she's fucked up her education brief in interviews?



She strikes me as an unpolished presence in front of the media, which is one of the reasons I like her. Of course any labour leader will be monstered by the press, but Rayner's more likely to just tell someone to fuck off instead of doing that Corbyn thing of fielding every loaded question as if it was an honest question, and as if actually hearing the answer was the point of asking it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 15, 2019)

Rayner is also on record speaking out against this second referendum policy that appears to have doomed Corbyn.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I need to flesh this out a bit more but here is what I think the next LP leader should be/do:
> 
> 1. Listen to the working class. In all places. Of all ages.
> 2. Engage with the working class on the basis of what it is, and what it’s priories are, rather than what the left thinks it is.
> ...



I like a lot of that, but I’d be interested to see where the boundaries of “working class” lie in this vision.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 15, 2019)

Ok what about Frank Skinner? Or that fat chap off the radio?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 15, 2019)

I will choose from the candidates for their policies and their ability to put it across. Any involved in the coup against Corbyn will be actively campained against. I will hold fire to see who emerges. The hinderance of getting enough votes of the blairite lacky MPs will hopefully be slightly reduced and maybe we can have a race between decent real labour MPs.

Oh while we're at it that Sadiq khan can go fuck himself. Bland non entity with not a thought of his own. A new mayoral candidate is required.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I quite like her and she fits the bill - northern, female and working class. She also didn't vote for Corbyn which will be a plus for some on the centre/righjt of the party. But what's she like on handling policy briefs etc? Genuine Q, I have a vague feeling she's fucked up her education brief in interviews?



I like Rayner in terms of her background, lived experience and so on. But I don't know what Rayner's politics actually are. Has she got any ideas beyond the statist top down instincts of much of the left? Can she synthesise and popularise these ideas? Does she want to build a social movement or merely engage in an endless battle for control of the Party? What are her practical ideas on re-embedding the non-state networks necessary to grow progressive pro-working class politics in smashed towns. How would she manage the divergent constituencies that are necessary to build something genuinely radical?


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

After reading this thread it looks like there isn't anyone who isn't a cunt in the eyes of someone, a bit like Urban where any poster is a cunt in the eyes of somebody else.
Looks like we're all cunts.
Who wrote 'hell is other people?'


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> After reading this thread it looks like there isn't anyone who isn't a cunt in the eyes of someone, a bit like Urban where any poster is a cunt in the eyes of somebody else.
> Looks like we're all cunts.
> Who wrote 'hell is other people?'




Some other cunt!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> After reading this thread it looks like there isn't anyone who isn't a cunt in the eyes of someone, a bit like Urban where any poster is a cunt in the eyes of somebody else.
> Looks like we're all cunts.
> Who wrote 'hell is other people?'


No one, no one's ever written it as a question before you cunt. Every other person has said it as a statement.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pedantic stalking cunt.

Every? Get editing you cunt.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

This is why labour lost


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Pedantic stalking cunt.
> 
> Every? Get editing you cunt.


Every


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 15, 2019)

This year's 'most irritating poster' award is going to be a real photo finish I reckon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This is why labour lost


There are as yet undiscovered tribes in the amazon rain forest who would vote against a side backed by philosophical


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> This year's 'most irritating poster' award is going to be a real photo finish I reckon.


A late spurt from Don Troooomp but I think philosophical has it in the bag


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Fucking racist cunt now, putting down Amazonian aboriginals!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Fucking racist cunt now, putting down Amazonian aboriginals!


I'm not putting them down.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Yes you are, calling them 'tribes' and assuming they want your Western construct of voting.
Mind you I have to admire your persistence.
Is there a prize for stalker of the year?


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

I see you took my advice about editing, no need to thank me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> I see you took my advice about editing, no need to thank me.


Talking to yourself, I see


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Yes you are, calling them 'tribes' and assuming they want your Western construct of voting.
> Mind you I have to admire your persistence.
> Is there a prize for stalker of the year?


I first posted on this thread on 7 November. You joined the thread yesterday. So fuck off with your stalking nonsense.

E2A Uncontacted peoples in the amazon traditionally and widely referred to as tribes, it isn't in any way a put down.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Fucking racist cunt now, putting down Amazonian aboriginals!



Please shut up


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I first posted on this thread on 7 November. You joined the thread yesterday. So fuck off with your stalking nonsense.


 Nah, every time I post anything anywhere on here you quickly pop up with your creepy stalkerish stuff.
Is it desperation, or are you the Master Mason of stalking, or simply a masturbator? Get your bog roll ready for your spaff if you are.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Please shut up


 Wow I have upset site moderator.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Nah, every time I post anything anywhere on here you quickly pop up with your creepy stalkerish stuff.
> Is it desperation, or are you the Master Mason of stalking, or simply a masturbator? Get your big roll ready for your spaff if you are.


That's a demonstrable lie. Before yesterday I hadn't crosser swords with you since 23 Nov, nor did we cross swords between 28 Oct and 21 Nov. I don't pursue you round the boards whatever you may wish


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> That's a demonstrable lie.


 Apologies, but no need to post any pictures of your used posh tissues, I believe you about the bog roll.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 15, 2019)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Apologies, but no need to post any pictures of your used posh tissues, I believe you about the bog roll.


It ill behoves you to baselessly accuse me of racism when very real incidents of racism have been reported on these boards as a result of the election.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

Shouldn't it be time for your victory lap philosophical, having proved us all to be racist imbeciles who haven't got a blueprint for the Irish border? It's your time.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> That's a demonstrable lie. Before yesterday I hadn't crosser swords with you since 23 Nov, nor did we cross swords between 28 Oct and 21 Nov. I don't pursue you round the boards whatever you may wish



I don't think I have posted since the 23rd of November. Be a love and check for me.
Are we crossing swords, or is your pork sword crossed?
I am not as concerned about dick size as you appear to be.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> It ill behoves you to baselessly accuse me of racism when very real incidents of racism have been reported on these boards as a result of the election.


 You are the one who invoked 'tribes' in the Amazon not me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> I don't think I have posted since the 23rd of November.


Yeh you haven't posted except on 30 Nov, 2, 6 8 December etc. You're a busted lying shit.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Shouldn't it be time for your victory lap philosophical, having proved us all to be racist imbeciles who haven't got a blueprint for the Irish border? It's your time.



Well seeing as you ask I note Boris Johnson hasn't got a blueprint for the Irish border either so Lexiters are not alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> You are the one who invoked 'tribes' in the Amazon not me.


Yeh, and you've yet to adduce any of your actual evidence that's in any way racist. Be a darling and rustle some up


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh you haven't posted except on 30 Nov, 2, 6 8 December etc. You're a busted lying shit.


Thanks for checking, I did say I wasn't sure. Now will you pop down to the corner shop for a packet of five Weights for me, I'll pay you later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Thanks for checking, I did say I wasn't sure. Now will you pop down to the corner shop for a packet of five Weights for me, I'll pay you later.


Your credit is no good


----------



## bimble (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> You are the one who invoked 'tribes' in the Amazon not me.


What is wrong with you. Here’s a bunch of racists look, disgusting eh Amazon tribes - Survival International
Maybe just stick to your one solitary subject in future.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I first posted on this thread on 7 November. You joined the thread yesterday. So fuck off with your stalking nonsense.
> 
> E2A Uncontacted peoples in the amazon traditionally and widely referred to as tribes, it isn't in any way a put down.


Due to this thread I have been reading with interest about the Sentinelese people

Sentinelese - Wikipedia


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, and you've yet to adduce any of your actual evidence that's in any way racist. Be a darling and rustle some up



The Trouble with Tribe 

Fill your boots.


----------



## bimble (Dec 15, 2019)

He was talking about the amazon but . Wrong thread .


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> where pro working class ideas can be painted as racist or ‘blue labour’



Just on this, the blue labour bit - there are aspects of blue labour that appeals to me, in as much as I think people in and around blue labour are sometimes better at rooting themselves in what the working class actually is and the rejection of the annoying-ness of the orthodox modern left is something that strikes a chord, but then there are many other parts of what blue labour is that is regressive rose tinted shite. Tbf blue labour isn't one thing, it's lots of competing things so I suppose that's inevitable. 

But Blue Labour as an actually existing grouping - Glasman (baron) met with nick timothy and others around May in run up to '17 election (which is where some of the shit in tory manifesto came from), against a labour opposition actually offering materially different policy, also called for ban on all immigration. That is fucking grim shite and should absolutely be opposed. Stuff I've read from prominent blue labour types like rowenna davies has been shit too, not in any way offering insight on advancement of working class interests, backed Smith in challenge too. Both in Spiked orbit too. Fuck the pair of them.

Then, of course, there is the fact that blue labour was very influential in Miliband era, its ideas were tested and found wanting. Yeah there is some wheat to separate from chaff but there is a fuck load of chaff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> The Trouble with Tribe
> 
> Fill your boots.


Yeh. I'm not talking about Africa but a different continent entirely. Uncontacted peoples widely referred to as tribes by among others the guardian and survival international. You're right to highlight the use of the term in Africa with its colonialist associations but in this as in so much else context is everything.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I'm not talking about Africa but a different continent entirely. Uncontacted peoples widely referred to as tribes by among others the guardian and survival international. You're right to highlight the use of the term in Africa with its colonialist associations but in this as in so much else context is everything.



You used the words 'in any way'. I have helped you out with *'a* way'.
If you want to hide behind context, then why don't you look at the context of my first post today number 339.
You were not able to engage with the context of that post, which was a brief musing on how it seems everybody is a cunt, but jumped in in your creepy, pedantic, stalkerish way about my use of a question mark.
What makes it funnier is your own fat fingered typing mistakes that follow.
If context is everything then your own criticism of my use of a question mark (a question mark! I can't even believe I'm typing this) was completely out of context with what I wrote.
It was your regular creepy stalkerish tendency to rubbish me and apparently establish some kind of superiority. I reacted.
I don't need any lectures from you about behaviour on here when I have experienced enough of your creepy stalkerish behaviour in the past.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> You used the words 'in any way'. I have helped you out with *'a* way'.
> If you want to hide behind context, then why don't you look at the context of my first post today number 339.
> You were not able to engage with the context of that post, which was a brief musing on how it seems everybody is a cunt, but jumped in in your creepy, pedantic, stalkerish way about my use of a question mark.
> What makes it funnier is your own fat fingered typing mistakes that follow.
> ...


No you haven't. You haven't had any such behaviour being as it doesn't in fact exist. You've claimed this behaviour consists in my replying to every post of yours. Anyone who explores the occasions we've engaged will soon see weeks pass in which no contact occurs. Not only do I not reply to every post of yours, I see while looking at our encounters I don't even post on every thread you contribute (I use the word in its loosest sense) to.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> No you haven't. You haven't had any such behaviour being as it doesn't in fact exist. You've claimed this behaviour consists in my replying to every post of yours. Anyone who explores the occasions we've engaged will soon see weeks pass in which no contact occurs. Not only do I not reply to every post of yours, I see while looking at our encounters I don't even post on every thread you contribute (I use the word in its loosest sense) to. BTW



I have in no way objected to being called a cunt.
Indeed coming from you it is a badge of honour.
If being a stalker by your definition is replying to _every_ post then I accept your definition. To me you respond to _enough _posts of mine to qualify as a stalker.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> I have in no way objected to being called a cunt.
> Indeed coming from you it is a badge of honour.
> If being a stalker by your definition is replying to _every_ post then I accept your definition. To me you respond to _enough _posts of mine to qualify as a stalker.



Looks like the ignore button might help.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

philosophical said:


> Nah, every time I post anything anywhere on here you quickly pop up with your creepy stalkerish stuff


I was using your definition of stalker you sad sack

So don't go changing it now


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

kenny g said:


> Looks like the ignore button might help.


Thank you for the suggestion


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

What’s this thread about again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s this thread about again?


Who will lead the rump of the plp following their evisceration at the recent election into the 2020s


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 15, 2019)

Had thought this a thread about Labour’s next leader but seems to be over-run with the same abuse that fried weed and other LFC plastics dish out.

anyway, notice Starmer getting lot of votes on the poll, which would be very bad news if it happened. I voted for RLB on the basis least worst and McDonnell seems to rate her. The neo-Blairites like Starmer and the charmless Phillips have nothing to commend them.

perhaps there should be a poll on who you would like to be next leader as opposed to who you think might be?

Labours problem is that their policies were not anchored in a credible vision: that’s what the Left need to work on.

Apologies for being on topic.


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2019)

I see lots of Blairites are rejoining, i reckon my close relative, who even now watches Blairs old speeches, wil join for the first time, he says he regrets not being involved in the Blair regime,, in the N.E


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 15, 2019)

Larry O'Hara said:


> Had thought this a thread about Labour’s next leader but seems to be over-run with the same abuse that fried weed and other LFC plastics dish out.
> 
> anyway, notice Starmer getting lot of votes on the poll, which would be very bad news if it happened. I voted for RLB on the basis least worst and McDonnell seems to rate her. The neo-Blairites like Starmer and the charmless Phillips have nothing to commend them.
> 
> ...


If you're going to slag me off use the quote function you cowardly little cunt 


I've not even posted on this thread. 

Post reported.


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2019)

Labour has the membership, still, get out into the estates, the communities, empower people, help them.

Going to be a strange Durham Miners Gala next year.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 15, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> If you're going to slag me off use the quote function you cowardly little cunt
> 
> 
> I've not even posted on this thread.
> ...


“Cowardly little cunt”: what wonderfully expressive language you have, suppose its an upgrade on merely calling me “shite” all the time along with your other LFC trolls. There’s two quotes for you. And hilarious you have reported me, absolutely priceless after the relentless abuse you dished out. Why don’t you do us all a favour and flush yourself down a lavatory...


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 15, 2019)

Thankfully there won’t be enough of them: though if these political undead do regain control of Labour it really has had it.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 15, 2019)

Thankfully there won’t be enough of them: though if these political undead do regain control of Labour it really has had it.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 15, 2019)

Thankfully there won’t be enough of them: though if these political undead do regain control of Labour it really has had it.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 15, 2019)

Larry O'Hara said:


> “Cowardly little cunt”: what wonderfully expressive language you have, suppose its an upgrade on merely calling me “shite” all the time along with your other LFC trolls. There’s two quotes for you. And hilarious you have reported me, absolutely priceless after the relentless abuse you dished out. Why don’t you do us all a favour and flush yourself down a lavatory...


You are a sad sack of shite and your cross thread beef says it all chap. Get beat in the Derby and rant about Hillsborough and Heysel. 

Plastics, criminals, trolls....

You're not making a good account of yourself here mate. Have you considered a long hard look at yourself?


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 15, 2019)

Larry O'Hara said:


> Thankfully there won’t be enough of them: though if these political undead do regain control of Labour it really has had it.





Larry O'Hara said:


> Thankfully there won’t be enough of them: though if these political undead do regain control of Labour it really has had it.





Larry O'Hara said:


> Thankfully there won’t be enough of them: though if these political undead do regain control of Labour it really has had it.



You're repeating yourself now uncle Albert


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 15, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> You are a sad sack of shite and your cross thread beef says it all chap. Get beat in the Derby and rant about Hillsborough and Heysel.
> 
> Plastics, criminals, trolls....
> 
> You're not making a good account of yourself here mate. Have you considered a long hard look at yourself?


See my above reply: and a good hard pull on the chain as you go


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 15, 2019)

Larry O'Hara said:


> See my above reply: and a good hard pull on the chain as you go


There's something wrong with you lad  Be kind to your family whilst you're behaving like this  You got a point today x


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

What’s open labour about then?


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

treelover said:


> Going to be a strange Durham Miners Gala next year.


100,000 people stood looking at their  shoes and doing half hearted recriminations. Still, there'll be the booze.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s open labour about then?


Soft left types. Intellectual milifandom


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

More seriously, it's hard to know what the reaction of the wider labour movement will be. Labour will be doing full on recriminations, out of which will almost certainly emerge a more working class leader, maybe northern, almost certainly female. But the wider movement, maybe there'll be some kind of old school mobilisation against the first proper johnson atttack - big london demos, strikes too. Really hard to tell how this defeat will play out. 1979/83 are models to look back on, but today's economy is very different and union membership is much lower.  Maybe we'll end up being more creative alongside a few hearty strikes. There'll be/continue to be plenty of issues.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Soft left types. Intellectual milifandom


 Probably an insight into my brainz at the moment, along with wonky eyesight, but I read that as 'Soft lens types. Intellectual milf-dom'.


----------



## philosophical (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> More seriously, it's hard to know what the reaction of the wider labour movement will be. Labour will be doing full on recriminations, out of which will almost certainly emerge a more working class leader, maybe northern, almost certainly female. But the wider movement, maybe there'll be some kind of old school mobilisation against the first proper johnson atttack - big london demos, strikes too. Really hard to tell how this defeat will play out. 1979/83 are models to look back on, but today's economy is very different and union membership is much lower.  Maybe we'll end up being more creative alongside a few hearty strikes. There'll be/continue to be plenty of issues.



I reckon industrial action would be a very good idea in as many instances as possible. The Tories have emasculated Unions (look at the postal workers defeat) but the SW rail workers give us some hope.
However to me it is very important that workers let the Tories know they are not chattels. You mention creative, if there is enough trust in a collective of workers they could all phone in sick on the same day, not sure if that is particularly creative.
In order to carry that sort of thing forward there may need courageous leadership, because 'Red Charlie' or whoever the media want to label will be constantly wary of what will come down on top.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> More seriously, it's hard to know what the reaction of the wider labour movement will be. Labour will be doing full on recriminations, out of which will almost certainly emerge a more* working class leader, maybe northern, almost certainly female.* But the wider movement, maybe there'll be some kind of old school mobilisation against the first proper johnson atttack - big london demos, strikes too. Really hard to tell how this defeat will play out. 1979/83 are models to look back on, but today's economy is very different and union membership is much lower.  Maybe we'll end up being more creative alongside a few hearty strikes. There'll be/continue to be plenty of issues.


I read the 'Next leader' something on either the Guardian/BBC yesterday and all the suggested folk were women  but I just couldn't see any of them fitting the bill after the fucking that Corbyn has had by the media. I might be wrong but many of those suggested had quite young political careers behind them and there wasn't anyone, male or female, who was already there that I thought "Yeah it's time they stepped up". To be honest I can't think of anyone who can step up into this shitfest currently. Tom? fuck no, Keir...more of the same, Jess....would end up in jail when the media started, Emily...? Na, Yvette Cooper...maybe


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> I read the 'Next leader' something on either the Guardian/BBC yesterday and all the suggested folk were women  but I just couldn't see any of them fitting the bill after the fucking that Corbyn has had by the media. I might be wrong but many of those suggested had quite young political Phcareers behind them and there wasn't anyone, male or female, who was already there that I thought "Yeah it's time they stepped up". To be honest I can't think of anyone who can step up into this shitfest currently. Tom? fuck no, Keir...more of the same, Jess....would end up in jail when the media started, Emily...? Na, Yvette Cooper...maybe


 Phillips against Johnson would be fun for a while (she'd win), but  politically, no, nay never. I like Rayner, I've just never had a sense she's brimming over with exciting ideas. Might be just because you just see her in a particular brief. Anyway, we'll see when they get into it.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

Have we had Kemptown's finest, Llllloyd Russelllll Moylllllle yet?

Curiously not in the poll (fail)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 15, 2019)

_Externinate, exterminate!_


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 15, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, we'll see when they get into it.



Which is why the LP have to take time and thought to get a sense of who'd be the best, or more relevantly, least worst.

I haven't been a Labour member for very many years (just a Lab voter!), but even as an outsider, anything I think/thought is worth jack shit.

Because I honestly thought (re Brexit) that a second ref option offering soft Brexit vs remain would be the least worst option.

What  crock of shit that was   .

I'm a remainer, and now, for the first time  accepting full defeat, but in recent weeks I fucked up royally on thinking that "Bored with Brexit" voters might focus differently than "Let's get Brexit done" voters.

I also genuinely thought that pushing a big "Protect the NHS" agenda plus generally anti-austerity stuff, might make it less of a Brexit dominated election which might give Corbs a chance of at least a hung Parliament.

Everything I thought was wrong .....

*TLDR  and back OT* : Next leader? Someone who isn't Starmer or Phillips would be OK compared to those two.


----------



## Supine (Dec 15, 2019)

Sorry but


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 15, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Which is why the LP have to take time and thought to get a sense of who'd be the best, or more relevantly, least worst.
> 
> I haven't been a Labour member for very many years (just a Lab voter!), but even as an outsider, anything I think/thought is worth jack shit.
> 
> ...



This post should be basically what all strongly remain-oriented Labour supporters, regardless of their point on the left--right spectrum, are concluding right now. I know Corbyn as a person didn't exactly win over voters in traditional w/c Labour heartlands, but it's a red herring to focus on that. Plenty of past Labour leaders who were no more 'one of us' in Blyth or Bolsover than Corbyn is still got those heartlands' votes. Huge numbers would have looked past his more Islington tendencies if he'd been saying something more like what they wanted to hear on Brexit. 

What your comment here seems to acknowledge is that Labour having been too scared to stop trying to appease the hardcore-remain faction has done nothing but ensure that that faction's worst-case scenario is now the most likely outcome.

 (I say this as a tepid remainer who always felt the party should have accepted the leave vote from day 1 and focused on making it the best form of exit it could be.)


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Sorry but
> 
> View attachment 193103



Aw, bless.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

Supine said:


> Sorry but
> 
> View attachment 193103


That has to be a piss take account, the banner photo is from his libdem era


----------



## Supine (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> That has to be a piss take account, the banner photo is from his libdem era



It only has 4 followers


----------



## kebabking (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> That has to be a piss take account, the banner photo is from his libdem era



I get the impression that pretty much everything in politics these days is a piss-take. Beyond satire barely covers it.

I wouldn't be remotely surprised if there are some in Labour who see Chuka as the man who would be king - and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the ego himself is exploring ways to get himself on the ballot paper. I know it's impossible - but the world is smacked off its tits.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 15, 2019)

Did we ever discover the real reason why chucka pulled out of that leadership race?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 15, 2019)

19sixtysix said:


> Did we ever discover the real reason why chucka pulled out of that leadership race?



We’ve been sharing it via DM


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

That Steve Bray chap


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

Or Femi


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

Paul Mason?


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 16, 2019)

Labour Party chairman on GMB discusses whether it would be a good idea to choose a new leader that is a remainer as remainers are now seen as toxic and anti-democratic.





> And another MP, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "Nobody tainted by propping Corbyn up should even be in the running. The only credible candidates are backbenchers."



Labour leadership race threatens party civil war as MPs fear ‘continuity Corbyn’ figure — The Independent


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Dec 16, 2019)

That Chuka thing, if it's for real:

"Not followed by anyone you are following"

I should fucking hope not!


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 16, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That's definitely where the party will end up if they don't select another left wing leader isn't it. When Corbyn was elected the runner up wasn't the Blairite (what did she get - 5% of the vote or something), it was Andy Burnham. Pretty much a like for like Miliband replacement. That's where they'd be without Corbyn not the Blairite right.


I was just thinking of Burnham. Only problem is he's a man. Perhaps there's time for him to transition before the next election. I think people trust him.

That's gotta a be a troll that Chukka thing. He's waaaay out in the political wilderness now. Chukka is well and truly chucked.

Edited, to be fair to Chukka he did mange a +19.6% swing to the LibDems.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 16, 2019)

The non-London woman thing is stupid. Seems a very London meteopolitan elite concern. A lot of working class people are traditional at heart. And the “red wall” just voted in an old Etonian former mayor of London! The new leader needs to be intelligent and needs to have a great strategy. That’s not RLB.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 16, 2019)

Why do you think RLB isn't intelligent? What's wrong with her strategy, and why?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 16, 2019)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I was just thinking of Burnham. Only problem is he's a man. Perhaps there's time for him to transition before the next election. I think people trust him.
> 
> That's gotta a be a troll that Chukka thing. He's waaaay out in the political wilderness now. Chukka is well and truly chucked.
> 
> Edited, to be fair to Chukka he did mange a +19.6% swing to the LibDems.



It's monday morning so I'm sure by now Umunna has started his new 250,000 p/a consultancy job in the city somewhere.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 16, 2019)

A colleague was just telling us Kevin Maguire of The Mirror is tipping Lisa Nandy, Maguire states that she could reconnect with the working class tory voters.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 16, 2019)

Supine said:


> Sorry but



i think the crucial bit there is


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> A colleague was just telling us Kevin Maguire of The Mirror is tipping Lisa Nandy, Maguire states that she could reconnect with the working class tory voters.
> 
> View attachment 193135



maybe better described as ex labour voters, not sure they are fully bought up to Conservative ideas, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> maybe better described as ex labour voters, not sure they are fully bought up to Conservative ideas, etc.


sometime labour voters. they may not be bought but they're doubtless hired.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 16, 2019)

billy_bob said:


> huge numbers would have looked past his more Islington tendencies


what are Corbyn's "Islington tendencies"?


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

are you trying to smoke out people who want to see less immigration, etc?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> what are Corbyn's "Islington tendencies"?


supporting arsenal no doubt


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> supporting arsenal no doubt



allotments


----------



## ska invita (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> are you trying to smoke out people who want to see less immigration, etc?


no. is islington something to do with immigration now?


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

Labour leader contender Lisa Nandy sparks Twitter frenzy by pointing out BBC bias on Marr

Lisa Nandy has a real go at the BBC's southern bias

only link i could find


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> maybe better described as ex labour voters, not sure they are fully bought up to Conservative ideas, etc.


No guarantees that some ever voted labour.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 16, 2019)

She makes a fair point and obviously I would agree with being less london centric, labour looking to rebuild appeal with the towns and cities that have sustained it for a century and all that. Really as part of a more substantive move towards listening to and representing working class interests. I do hope it is that though and not just a swing towards having more professional northerners and talking about The North (the capitals are dead important) without anything of any substance really changing. Greyscale photo shoots of Burnham standing in the rain.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> what are Corbyn's "Islington tendencies"?



Just using it as shorthand for perceptions that have been heard on the doorstep in working class northern places - that may be reductive bollocks but still have played a part in any disconnect expressed in such places. But in any case part of my point was I think those things are overplayed in many what-went-wrong analyses.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I first posted on this thread on 7 November. You joined the thread yesterday. So fuck off with your stalking nonsense.
> 
> E2A Uncontacted peoples in the amazon traditionally and widely referred to as tribes, it isn't in any way a put down.



If you are going down that way better to say collectives?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

extra dry said:


> If you are going down that way better to say collectives?


if i find myself down that way i'll ask the uncontacted peoples how they wish to be described. they may object to collectives on any number of grounds, perhaps because it may be associated with the economic policies of lenin and stalin.


----------



## extra dry (Dec 16, 2019)

That's why labour lost.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

extra dry said:


> That's why labour lost.


no it isn't


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2019)

RLB & AR agree a pact to go for Leader and Deputy respectively, twitter says.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> RLB & AR agree a pact to go for Leader and Deputy respectively, twitter says.



Interesting. Looks like the official left candidate/s then. How do people see RLB's stance on abortion rights playing out?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Interesting. Looks like the official left candidate/s then. How do people see RLB's stance on abortion rights playing out?


could you outline it for the uninitiated?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

on second thoughts, her voting record on it


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> could you outline it for the uninitiated?



Apparently she's a "Good Catholic".


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Apparently she's a "Good Catholic".


the only good catholic is a lapsed catholic


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> RLB & AR agree a pact to go for Leader and Deputy respectively, twitter says.



Apparently Richard Burgon says he will support RLB and go for the deputy leadership himself. Sky news though so fuck knows.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Apparently Richard Burgon says he will support RLB and go for the deputy leadership himself. Sky news though so fuck knows.



There was speculation on the radio this morning that Rayner would run as deputy on a joint ticket with RLB.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There was speculation on the radio this morning that Rayner would run as deputy on a joint ticket with RLB.


tbh, Rayner going for Deputy seems to make sense...reckon she'd be quite a credible voice & all round attack dog.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 16, 2019)

I don't understand how anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes with Richard Burgon could possibly think he could be an asset to them.

What constituency does he bring?

The man is a certifiable fuckwit - he literally drools while watching someone else tie his shoelaces.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 16, 2019)

I don’t buy all this needing someone from the north to reconnect with northern voters. Johnson seems to have managed pretty well for the tories with zero northern credentials.

If Labour were to think that is some kind of silver bullet back to winning the north then it’d be naive to say the least.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2019)

damn, RLB's odds have collapsed, barely any point putting any money on.

Lisa Nandy has shorter odds than Keir Starmer now.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

RLB and AR would coast it


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> damn, RLB's odds have collapsed, barely any point putting any money on.
> 
> Lisa Nandy has shorter odds than Keir Starmer now.



Yeah was 5/1 Saturday, we've missed the boat. Could see Nandy getting it though.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 16, 2019)

Is there any footage of #Becky (for that will be her name) getting angry/passionate in her speaking? Just arguing even


----------



## manji (Dec 16, 2019)

Anyone who considers Jess Philips needs to do some more investigation. The first time I saw she was making an impressive firebrand speech against the Tories,dressed quite shabbily, no make , northern accent. Strangely she kept apologising to Bercow about about breaking protocol as she was new to this building (she’d been an MP for 5 years ) which he sympathised with.
The whammy of the speech was she attacking MPs like Kenneth Clarke for not supporting de Pfeffel.
Turns out she’s close friends with Rees Mogg amongst others and then over the weekend there were stories in the Right Wing press that Jess would be the Labour leader the Tories would fear most.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> She makes a fair point and obviously I would agree with being less london centric, labour looking to rebuild appeal with the towns and cities that have sustained it for a century and all that. Really as part of a more substantive move towards listening to and representing working class interests. I do hope it is that though and not just a swing towards having more professional northerners and talking about The North (the capitals are dead important) without anything of any substance really changing. *Greyscale photo shoots of Burnham standing in the rain*.



Well, he is a Joy Division fan.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

RBL is a really decent person, but she is atm, charisma free, Lisa would be good, but maybe not strong enough at PMQ's, which seems to matter a lot to the bubble.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 16, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> I don’t buy all this needing someone from the north to reconnect with northern voters. Johnson seems to have managed pretty well for the tories with zero northern credentials.
> 
> If Labour were to think that is some kind of silver bullet back to winning the north then it’d be naive to say the least.



Yeah, this chimes with what I said earlier about 'they don't like Corbyn' being a red herring. People in the north might warm more readily to a northerner than a southerner, _all other things being equal_. But give us some credit - I think most of us'll take to a southerner saying and doing the right things much more than a northerner not.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> RBL is a really decent person, but she is atm, charisma free



Agree - I'd rather see AR and her reversing their targeted roles here. I think they're both fairly good on substance but AR exudes passion, and anger when it's needed. RBL is too robotic.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

Note to manji : Jess Phillips does not have a northern accent.

She has a, trying slightly too hard, Birmingham accent. Which is in the West _Midlands _


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Note to manji : Jess Phillips does not have a northern accent.
> 
> She has a, trying slightly too hard, Birmingham accent. Which is in the West _Midlands _



Still Northern. 



Spoiler: :-)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 16, 2019)

manji said:


> Anyone who considers Jess Philips needs to do some more investigation. The first time I saw she was making an impressive firebrand speech against the Tories,dressed quite shabbily, no make , northern accent. Strangely she kept apologising to Bercow about about breaking protocol as she was new to this building (she’d been an MP for 5 years ) which he sympathised with.
> The whammy of the speech was she attacking MPs like Kenneth Clarke for not supporting de Pfeffel.
> Turns out she’s close friends with Rees Mogg amongst others and then over the weekend there were stories in the Right Wing press that Jess would be the Labour leader the Tories would fear most.


Not a fan but I don't think she's part of a tory headbanger conspiracy, also her accent is I'm told affected but it isn't in any way 'northern'


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Still Northern.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know what this shit is. The North starts at Gateshead.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> RBL is a really decent person, but she is atm, charisma free.





billy_bob said:


> RBL is too robotic.



Talking to people I know, the general impression is she doesn't come across well, the impression is that she comes across as shouting at you, rather than talking to you.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

billy_bob said:


> I don't know what this shit is. The North starts at Gateshead.



Wherever it starts it don’t include Jess Phillips or Birmingham


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Wherever it starts it don’t include Jess Phillips or Birmingham


That's where it ends


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

billy_bob said:


> I don't know what this shit is. The North starts at Gateshead.


Junction 1 of the M1 I think you'll find


----------



## manji (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Note to manji : Jess Phillips does not have a northern accent.
> 
> She has a, trying slightly too hard, Birmingham accent. Which is in the West _Midlands _


In the speech she did. Apparently she has 10 different accents which she uses as required.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Talking to people I know, the general impression is she doesn't come across well, the impression is that she comes across as shouting at you, rather than talking to you.



In the TV debate I also noticed a tendency not to make eye contact. Not helpful when people are making snap but very important judgements about whether or not they warm to you.


----------



## andysays (Dec 16, 2019)

Who's the AR people are referring to?


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2019)

andysays said:


> Who's the AR people are referring to?


Angela Rayner


----------



## andysays (Dec 16, 2019)

Of course

 at self


----------



## cantsin (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Talking to people I know, the general impression is she doesn't come across well, the impression is that she comes across as shouting at you, rather than talking to you.



exactly how I took her response to gentle enquiry re : Open Selection pre Con 2018 - dismissive, almost shouty


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

I think its likely to be AR, but i hope it is an inclusive contest. Apprewntly Lisa is the centrists choice atm, yet she broadly supports the 2017 manifesto, bits of 2019.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> RLB & AR agree a pact to go for Leader and Deputy respectively, twitter says.





SpackleFrog said:


> Apparently she's a "Good Catholic".



oh ffs


----------



## andysays (Dec 16, 2019)

TBH, I don't have a problem with someone regularly abstaining in a vote changing abortion laws, in anywhere near the way I would if they regularly voted *against* liberalising the law.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

manji said:


> In the speech she did. Apparently she has 10 different accents which she uses as required.



Amazing. Thanks for the investigative work you do.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

Jess Philips is a fake in some ways, but she stood up to the homophobes outside the school, fought hard on domestic violence, etc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> Jess Philips is a fake in some ways, but she stood up to the homophobes outside the school, fought hard on domestic violence, etc.



She can do 10 accents as well


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

Has Ed said anything yet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> She can do 10 accents as well


Ah but does she fire juggle?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> Has Ed said anything yet?


ed nigma?

Or Ed from years ago?


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

Milliband.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

AR likely to stand for DL, i will back her for that, maybe Lisa for PM.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> damn, RLB's odds have collapsed, barely any point putting any money on.



Which bit of winning 150% x your stake is it that you don’t like? (She’s 6/4 now)

See, this is either a misunderstanding of gambling or a bow to greed.

The Labour leader market is win only. And if you think RLB will win, you’d still have a bet. 150% increase in your money on a short term bet is better than anything you’ll find on the stock market or a bank account.

‘Value’ in gambling is either represented by a sure fire winner, or something you think is a winner, or on betting at bigger odds on an each way contest. 5/1, moving to 6/4, would be a loss in value only on an each way market, where you’d get 1/4 or 1/5 the odds. But be guaranteed a payout on a place. There is no place in this market, it’s win only.

You may have ‘missed the boat’ on 5/1. But a winner is a winner. And if you think she won’t win, then chucking money at 5/1 on a loser is still a loser.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 16, 2019)

I'm not entirely averse to making money out of this situation, but that does seem to be missing the point somewhat


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2019)

> Discussed the issue with a colleague who canvassed for Labour, spent a lot of time knocking on doors. Seems that most people wanted a rock hard brexit right now and thought that Corbyn was an actual terrorist.
> It would have been a miracle for anything to cut through the disinformation about Corbyn.
> He may have not helped matters by not appearing on TV / radio that often to fight his corner - whether or not he'd have been given a fair hearing is another matter.
> Furthermore, John Harris's article hits another nail on the head; in order to reconnect with voters Labour need to reconnect with the voters. Due to the tabloid misinformation campaigns Labour MPs are vilified as out of touch, bleeding heart softies too concerned with cushy jobs in Westminster and the Unions are portrayed as some kind of sinister mafia - It's not enough to tell people they have their best interests at heart... the Labour Movement (including the unions) as a whole will have to get out and do things to reconnect... from litter picking, tea and biscuits for lonely or homeless people, campaigning on local issues... I can't see how the Labour party can continue in the current environment, the tories and their backers do not respect Labour as political rivals, they treat them as an enemy to be exterminated, the same way as they did not view the lib dems as coalition partners but rivals to be undermined and decimated. The only way I can see progressive politics to gain a foothold is for people to demonstrate it in action



seems to be a ongoing notion that LP needs to become embedded in its communities, hope it does.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 16, 2019)

billy_bob said:


> I'm not entirely averse to making money out of this situation, but that does seem to be missing the point somewhat



As with seemingly many ‘debates’ these days (Thornberry vs Flint - you decide!) I have no dog in this fight. 

But I have no problem with educating people about betting purposefully.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 16, 2019)

manji said:


> In the speech she did. Apparently she has 10 different accents which she uses as required.



Really?

That’s impressive- how are each of these accents characterised?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> Really?
> 
> That’s impressive- how are each of these accents characterised?


Poor


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 16, 2019)

manji said:


> Anyone who considers Jess Philips needs to do some more investigation. The first time I saw she was making an impressive firebrand speech against the Tories,dressed quite shabbily, no make , northern accent. Strangely she kept apologising to Bercow about about breaking protocol as she was new to this building (she’d been an MP for 5 years ) which he sympathised with.
> The whammy of the speech was she attacking MPs like Kenneth Clarke for not supporting de Pfeffel.
> Turns out she’s close friends with Rees Mogg amongst others and then over the weekend there were stories in the Right Wing press that Jess would be the Labour leader the Tories would fear most.





Fraternizing with the Mogg!


----------



## Big Bertha (Dec 16, 2019)

British 
American 
Irish 
Australian 
French 
Italian 
Spanish 
Scottish 
Scandinavian
Latin American




Marty1 said:


> Really?
> 
> That’s impressive- how are each of these accents characterised?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 16, 2019)

treelover said:


> seems to be a ongoing notion that LP needs to become embedded in its communities, hope it does.



From where is that quote in your post #485 (above), treelover ? 

Anyway, here's a link to that John Harris article mentioned in that post. I thought he was pretty good ...


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 16, 2019)

It’s important that the leader is charismatic, quick, clever, esp as Johnson, though deeply flawed, appears to engage people. The leader also needs vision, ideas. Having good politics helps of course, but the NEC and the Party can set these. It’ll be for no good if the leader can’t project them.

Sometimes it is hard for onlookers to understand who, for example, has their colleagues respect and trust, who they will follow, who is reliable and of good character. Triangulating this through simply they voted x on y and taking the one with the most points doesn’t always provide the best answer (though they can’t stray at all far from a having top voting record).

And the least predictable is how the role will change them. Can they grow or become more paranoid and insular like Brown?


----------



## binka (Dec 16, 2019)

Ok so here's the plan:

We all back Emily Thornberry at 40/1
We all join Labour
We all vote for Emily Thornberry


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 16, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s important that the leader is charismatic, quick, clever, .... The leader also needs vision, ideas.


These are exactly the type of buzzwords that are used for CEOs. What do you actually mean by any of these words?


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 16, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> These are exactly the type of buzzwords that are used for CEOs. What do you actually mean by any of these words?



What do you think would be the characteristics of a good union leader? Similar here. The leader is a bit of a CEO and you have to be able to inspire loyalty while managing people. Being clever helps massively, it’s a job constantly under quick fire question in the public eye. They need to be able to project the Party’s vision to other people and anticipate how it will play.

It’s pretty clear that the last few leaders haven’t had those qualities, but having them doesn’t automatically mean ‘cunt’.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 16, 2019)

The fact that you seem to want a "union leader" (what do you mean by that anyway) or leader of a political party to have the same attributes as CEOs gives me warning bells. What do you mean by have "vision"? Did Corbyn not have a vision? There are many things he can be criticised for but I'm not sure that is one. 

The whole purpose of a CEO is to exploit the employees, an attribute that do not I want to see in a union general secretary or leader of any political group I was interested in joining. Frankly I'm skeptical of the whole idea of leadership as most people on this thread see it. Workers did not get achieve major gains in the post war period because the leader of the LP had charisma, vision or anything else. They got improvements in their conditions because they organised and forced concessions from capital.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

Mason and others are already busy writing their narratives about the death of the or the ‘unmaking of’ the British working class.

This should be resisted. And challenged vigourously.

However, the fact is that the strong industrial unions, and other strong non-state networks, that allowed the organised working class to force those concessions has been both weakened by neo-liberal economy and culture. Its even been eviscerated in some sectors and places.

I agree with redsquirrel that addressing this is a pre-requisite. I’ll be supporting (via my union) whichever candidate sets their stall out best on this basis.

I will be opposing candidates interested only in winning the party and controlling it, and/or is motivated by top down statist solutions only


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 16, 2019)

I'll use my union vote but here I am, yet again sullied and tainted by participating in the labour machine. Fucks sake.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 16, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> The fact that you seem to want a "union leader" (what do you mean by that anyway) or leader of a political party to have the same attributes as CEOs gives me warning bells. What do you mean by have "vision"? Did Corbyn not have a vision? There are many things he can be criticised for but I'm not sure that is one.
> 
> The whole purpose of a CEO is to exploit the employees, an attribute that do not I want to see in a union general secretary or leader of any political group I was interested in joining. Frankly I'm skeptical of the whole idea of leadership as most people on this thread see it. Workers did not get achieve major gains in the post war period because the leader of the LP had charisma, vision or anything else. They got improvements in their conditions because they organised and forced concessions from capital.


Insofar as the Labour Party can achieve anything, its leader needs to be able to do three things:

- establish and maintain what the party actually represents
- protect the party and its manifesto's integrity from threats and conflicts, particularly internal
- communicate what the party represents to the public in an electorally attractive manner

This is classic CEO stuff - representation - whether you like it or not. But there are things that are deliberately not in there as essentials: _deciding _what the party represents, controlling everything it does, or doing the work. Better leadership in this respect isn't mutually exclusive to continued Corbynism or similar, although it poses some very difficult challenges.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 16, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'll use my *union vote*



I actually wish I could use mine, if it existed, but PCS are civil service (obviously!  ) and unaffiliated, so whatevs.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 16, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Frankly I'm skeptical of the whole idea of leadership as most people on this thread see it.



it's awkward.

a lot of the public seem to have been led to see 'leadership' as being a posh bloke in a smartish suit who's entitled to tell them what to do.

and of course a lot of the selling of this style of leadership has been done by, or on behalf of posh blokes who feel entitled to tell people what to do...

jeremy corbyn (leaving aside his policies for a moment) clearly did not see himself as that sort of leader, and (i really can't remember who wrote it or where) it has been said that he considers that listening to people is a more important part of leadership than telling people what to do.

this style is of course very easy to attack by people pushing the 'posh bloke' / 'strong leader' candidate.

ultimately, agree that substance is more important than style, but i can't see a time when the media won't treat a UK general election as much less than a presidential contest.



redsquirrel said:


> Workers did not get achieve major gains in the post war period because the leader of the LP had charisma, vision or anything else.



i have no personal recollections of clement attlee, but have certainly read quite a lot of criticism from the time about his alleged lack of charisma / personality...


----------



## mauvais (Dec 16, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> and of course a lot of the selling of this style of leadership has been done by, or on behalf of posh blokes who feel entitled to tell people what to do...
> 
> jeremy corbyn (leaving aside his policies for a moment) clearly did not see himself as that sort of leader, and (i really can't remember who wrote it or where) it has been said that he considers that listening to people is a more important part of leadership than telling people what to do.


Listening is great, but on its own it's therapy, not leadership. It's no good listening to people if all you're going to do is agree with or accept it, then do nothing. Arguably listening-heavy leadership gave us the second referendum kludge, myriad confusing or incredible manifesto commitments and a lack of action on antisemitism. It's an approach only fit for the most benevolent times.

The Labour Party desperately does need to listen, more than anything, but it also needs to transform what it hears into difficult decision making, commitment and leadership, often existentially so.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 16, 2019)

I haven't yet seen any evidence that RLB can pull any of this off by the way. I hope she or someone like her can.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 16, 2019)

I like Angela Rayner. She's not on the list.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 16, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I haven't yet seen any evidence that RLB can pull any of this off by the way. I hope she or someone like her can.



I don't think i've even noticed  her before. Has she done much interview wise recently?


----------



## mauvais (Dec 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't think i've even noticed  her before. Has she done mush interview wise recently?


I don't know. I mostly know about her - and not much - because I work in Salford. Her constituency office is on the way in.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'll use my union vote but here I am, yet again sullied and tainted by participating in the labour machine. Fucks sake.



Aye. But there is no getting around it. Labour has sucked in so much of ‘the left’ since 2015.

Let’s hope this now begins to change. And the move is to the estates and the workplaces. That the emphasis is bottom up, devolving and local.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Aye. But there is no getting around it. Labour has sucked in so much of ‘the left’ since 2015.
> 
> Let’s hope this now begins to change



For the benefit of Labour or the Left?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> For the benefit of Labour or the Left?



Neither. For people


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

I guess my question is how should those of us outside the Labour Party relate to it?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I guess my question is how should those of us outside the Labour Party relate to it?



That’s a really good question. One I’m actively thinking about and I’m sure others are too


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

Dunno but I could see something like the IWCA developing (possibly within or outside the Labour Party)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 16, 2019)

Based on this alone, she would be my first preference:

Newly-elected Jewish MP defends saying Nazis should get ‘heads kicked in’


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

This may help.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Dunno but I could see something like the IWCA developing (possibly within or outside the Labour Party)



Yes. Or even the IWCA....


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Dunno but I could see something like the IWCA developing (possibly within or outside the Labour Party)


You're very optimistic


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You're very optimistic



Maybe. But the first question is a simple one: Is there now an urgent need, a top priority, for as much resource as possible to be focussed on the estates and the workplaces? To begin a rebuild. To shift from social media and party games and towards people as they are. The answer is yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Maybe. But the first question is a simple one: Is there now an urgent need, a top priority, for as much resource as possible to be focussed on the estates and the workplaces? To begin a rebuild. To shift from social media and party games and towards people as they are. The answer is yes.


I think it very optimistic to anticipate such a thing coming out of the Labour Party or that milieu, out of momentum. So much left wing effort has gone into reclaiming the Labour Party I'd be very surprised if much from that tendency would go into building a movement as you describe


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Maybe. But the first question is a simple one: Is there now an urgent need, a top priority, for as much resource as possible to be focussed on the estates and the workplaces? To begin a rebuild. To shift from social media and party games and towards people as they are. The answer is yes.



There’s been an urgent need for a while to be fair. 

We’ve already had this debate.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You're very optimistic



No hope no fear 

What’s the latin for that?


----------



## YouSir (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I think it very optimistic to anticipate such a thing coming out of the Labour Party or that milieu, out of momentum. So much left wing effort has gone into reclaiming the Labour Party I'd be very surprised if much from that tendency would go into building a movement as you describe



I'm a bit more optimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people joined up for/because of Corbyn, the popular idea of the Lefty activist in that represents a relatively tiny portion of the whole compared to the bulk of the membership. Momentum isn't that big in itself, the active part of it is smaller by far. Most of the new members who voted for the leader, did a bit of campaigning etc are just as likely to see being involved in and around their communities in a practical way as a path forward as anything. Sure, half of my family signed up to support the Leftward shift but they're all far more involved in day to day real world stuff than they are party political wrangling.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I think it very optimistic to anticipate such a thing coming out of the Labour Party or that milieu, out of momentum. So much left wing effort has gone into reclaiming the Labour Party I'd be very surprised if much from that tendency would go into building a movement as you describe



I think you are probably right, but let’s see. Bedlam’s question was, to be fair, about those of us outside of Labour. And to be equally fair I probably muddied the waters with my answer. I’m hoping the next labour leader will prioritise it but I’m not expecting they will


----------



## two sheds (Dec 16, 2019)

Anyone linked to this on Jess Phillips showing where her sympathies lie on election night? 

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/KdOJZxRv/jp-ge-night_dvd.mp4

From Skwawkbox not sure whether links to that are acceptable.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2019)

Someone who isn't afraid to hit because they might hit back.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 17, 2019)

Humberto said:


> Someone who isn't afraid to hit because they might hit back.



Prescott?


----------



## Humberto (Dec 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Prescott?



noice


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 17, 2019)

Someone with a bit of fight in them, that can passionately defend policy. Rayner would be better than RLB from the little I’ve seem of both, their joint ticket is the wrong way around.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 17, 2019)

YouSir said:


> I'm a bit more optimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people joined up for/because of Corbyn, the popular idea of the Lefty activist in that represents a relatively tiny portion of the whole compared to the bulk of the membership. Momentum isn't that big in itself, the active part of it is smaller by far. Most of the new members who voted for the leader, did a bit of campaigning etc are just as likely to see being involved in and around their communities in a practical way as a path forward as anything. Sure, half of my family signed up to support the Leftward shift but they're all far more involved in day to day real world stuff than they are party political wrangling.


Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> Of course
> at self


#Anj&Bec
awaits


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Insofar as the Labour Party can achieve anything, its leader needs to be able to do three things:
> 
> - establish and maintain what the party actually represents
> - protect the party and its manifesto's integrity from threats and conflicts, particularly internal
> ...


Exactly _representation_. Fine if you are going to argue for that do so but then let's be clear you are arguing against socialism - workers control of the means of production, not state control, not party control, workers. 

As for the leader of the LP _needing_ to do the above to act like a CEO, well make an argument for that need. As Puddy_Tat points the political consensus denies Attlee of many of the attributes that people on this thread have stated the leader of the LP needs (and on the other hand Gaitskell is often given such attributes, _the best PM Britian never had_).

Are you also going to argue that business _need_ CEOs and senior management teams? Against workers control? Against economic democracy? 
When unions first formed they did not have general secretaries and you had workers control of disputes. The Paris Commune, the Russian revolution, the Spanish Revolution these occurred and succeeded based on people organising together via direct democracy not because the "right" leader was there.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Exactly _representation_. Fine if you are going to argue for that do so but then let's be clear you are arguing against socialism - workers control of the means of production, not state control, not party control, workers.


No. It need make no difference. Not representation like representative democracy, representation like spokesperson. It need do nothing for controlling what happens beneath.


redsquirrel said:


> As for the leader of the LP _needing_ to do the above to act like a CEO, well make an argument for that need. As Puddy_Tat points the political consensus denies Attlee of many of the attributes that people on this thread have stated the leader of the LP needs (and on the other hand Gaitskell is often given such attributes, _the best PM Britian never had_).


It's the interface between whatever the party actually does and the form that the electorate expects. If you think you can move the Overton window so massively that something else, some other leadership model, becomes palatable, then knock yourself out but until then we're stuck with terms like 'statesmanlike'. The exact requirement is hard to define because it's of its time and relative to other offerings, not independent, but nonetheless it exists.


redsquirrel said:


> Are you also going to argue that business _need_ CEOs and senior management teams? Against workers control? Against economic democracy?
> When unions first formed they did not have general secretaries and you had workers control of disputes. The Paris Commune, the Russian revolution, the Spanish Revolution these occurred and succeeded based on people organising together via direct democracy not because the "right" leader was there.


Yeees, but all of these things ultimately _did_ have leaders. I'm not sufficiently qualified in history to comment on what exactly they did or didn't bring, what would have happened without them, but it's largely immaterial to this argument which goes back to the 'interface' point above. However there is a key purpose to movement leaders beyond that which is to shape and channel other people's energies. That doesn't mean the activities wouldn't happen without them, that the workers wouldn't organise and carry out their actions, but it might mean that the timing is coordinated for maximum possible effect, or that disparate groups are brought together for practical gain. It may not substantively alter what is actually done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.


And even if they do it will be difficult to abandon the top down behaviour they've worked within for years


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> The fact that you seem to want a "union leader" (what do you mean by that anyway) or leader of a political party to have the same attributes as CEOs gives me warning bells. What do you mean by have "vision"? Did Corbyn not have a vision? There are many things he can be criticised for but I'm not sure that is one.
> 
> The whole purpose of a CEO is to exploit the employees, an attribute that do not I want to see in a union general secretary or leader of any political group I was interested in joining. Frankly I'm skeptical of the whole idea of leadership as most people on this thread see it. Workers did not get achieve major gains in the post war period because the leader of the LP had charisma, vision or anything else. They got improvements in their conditions because they organised and forced concessions from capital.



It’s not only businesses that have leaders and the qualities of good leaders are not simply in opposition to what the led want. I would say Len is a confident and charismatic leader. He has the confidence to speak and articulate what he believes in and what his union stands for. That’s all I mean by those qualities. Not all of us have it, most MPs don’t and many people who do are mendacious and self-serving. So choose well. If Labour chooses someone who is not quick of wit and personable this will be ruthlessly exposed.

I don’t disagree with your point about how workers make gains for a moment. I’m interested to know how you think the leader of the Labour Party should articulate that.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 17, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.





Pickman's model said:


> And even if they do it will be difficult to abandon the top down behaviour they've worked within for years



Fuck em then. Work with people who aren’t wankers


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 17, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Which bit of winning 150% x your stake is it that you don’t like? (She’s 6/4 now)
> 
> See, this is either a misunderstanding of gambling or a bow to greed.
> 
> ...



No, you're misunderstanding gambling. 

No bet is a sure fire bet or it wouldn't be a bet. You take a risk which is your stake in search of a reward which is your payout. 5/1 represents good value in terms of risk/reward because it was priced poorly by the bookies. Now that it is 6/4 whatever your stake/risk is it pays out less but the risk is the same. 

Additionally if you can't afford to stake much (and you should never risk more than you can afford) the reward becomes negligible for the risk - if I risk a tenner at 5/1 the possible reward is 50 quid which is a night out or a weeks shopping but 15 quid is a cheap round of drinks so I might as well just put the tenner towards the drinks and not bother. 

It's similar to poker - what risk you take and how you play has to be influenced by what is available to win. No one makes a big bet or a risky bluff call to win a tiny pot.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2019)

If you want to work around having a leader, you do have to compensate for the positive attributes of group development and effectiveness that a good leader can bring.  There’s a lot of studies that show how leadership can be transformational.  It’s not necessary or sufficient for group effectiveness but removing it does leave a hole you need to fill by other means.  

it also seems that humans left to their own devices in groups will pretty much always produce a leader unless systems are in place to disrupt it.  So you have to deal with that too.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Yeees, but all of these things ultimately _did_ have leaders. I'm not sufficiently qualified in history to comment on what exactly they did or didn't bring, what would have happened without them, but it's largely immaterial to this argument which goes back to the 'interface' point above.


First, not all business do have leaders, not all institutions have had CEOs. Workers co-ops still exist, many groups work on delegate democracy. Even those institutions that have had some type of leader the nature of the leader has changed remarkably over the years, university vice-chancellors today are very different from what they were 25 years ago, the role of the headteacher has significantly altered, in both cases the marketisation of the sector has created the type of CEO "leadership" now seen. Even in political parties the role of leader has changed.



mauvais said:


> It's the interface between whatever the party actually does and the form that the electorate expects. If you think you can move the Overton window so massively that something else, some other leadership model, becomes palatable, then knock yourself out but until then we're stuck with terms like 'statesmanlike'.





Mr Moose said:


> It’s not only businesses that have leaders and the qualities of good leaders are not simply in opposition to what the led want. I would say Len is a confident and charismatic leader. He has the confidence to speak and articulate what he believes in and what his union stands for. That’s all I mean by those qualities. Not all of us have it, most MPs don’t and many people who do are mendacious and self-serving. So choose well. If Labour chooses someone who is not quick of wit and personable this will be ruthlessly exposed


I'm sorry but its pretty laughable to claim to subscribe to a political philosophy who's aim is to change the political economy of the world via ensuring workers control, while insisting that the organisation you see as necessary to being about those changes be built around an organisational form that acts against member/worker control. If you don't even have the confidence to support direct democracy in the organisation(s) that you posit is key to bringing improvements to workers then how do you expect to build workers control in the workplace, in communities etc? Or are you retreating from socialism to support a (weak) social democracy? (There's a nice parallel here to Habermas' European people, the construction of a group via anti-democratic top down imposition).

As I've said before this is the key distinction -  between those of us that trust in the workers and those that don't. For me as a communist change can only be brought about by the workers, and that therefore we need to take every opportunity to increase workers control, direct democracy and economic democracy. Trying to build socialism from the top down has failed every time.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2019)

You're still seeing what you want or expect to see rather than what's there.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2019)

What part is incorrect? You've argued that some type of party is necessary to bring about the changes you want. You've argued against workers control of their communities. 

I'm not sure whether you'd consider yourself a socialist, a social democrat or just a left liberal but your politics mirrors that of the Webbs, top-down, the party leading the elect to the light.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 17, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.



Hundreds of thousands of people signed up, a lot of whom hadn't been involved in anything before or who didn't (maybe still don't) view their involvement as political 'action' so much as just doing stuff in their community - although both build the same networks. Some will do one thing, others will do another, blanket pessimism like yours there is meaningless.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> What part is incorrect? You've argued that some type of party is necessary to bring about the changes you want. You've argued against workers control of their communities.
> 
> I'm not sure whether you'd consider yourself a socialist, a social democrat or just a left liberal but your politics mirrors that of the Webbs, top-down, the party leading the elect to the light.


What's incorrect is self-evident; that you've had to go fucking about bringing posts from a different time and context into it to fight an argument not remotely being made here. It's dishonest.

I don't know that I would necessarily make all the same arguments I have in the past now, especially given recent big fat lessons - my opinion isn't immutable. But I certainly can't be arsed to go back through time trying to remember and then reconcile or not whatever it was I was on about in some different discussion. Fuck that.

Neither I nor the other poster you've quoted have said anything, in the posts being argued, about the necessity of top down leadership, just the necessity of leadership. You've decided the rest of it for yourself and then argued against it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 17, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Hundreds of thousands of people signed up, a lot of whom hadn't been involved in anything before or who didn't (maybe still don't) view their involvement as political 'action' so much as just doing stuff in their community - although both build the same networks. Some will do one thing, others will do another, blanket pessimism like yours there is meaningless.



The significance of this cannot be underestimated. The potential, if directed properly, it represents is also important.

But before going further a series of questions need to be considered. What sort of activity has been undertaken? Where? What were the results? How many were involved? Is it ongoing? Has it gone beyond 'bussed in' activists and volunteers? etc etc 

My own guess is that a lot of energy, time and people have been squandered on social media activism. More has been committed to internal Labour Party factional power struggles.

The starting point therefore is to sort the wheat from the chaff here. Too much of the debate around this is an abstraction (I include myself in this). So the first question I have is this: is there a report or similar examining projects, activity and so on?


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> What part is incorrect? You've argued that some type of party is necessary to bring about the changes you want. You've argued against workers control of their communities.
> 
> I'm not sure whether you'd consider yourself a socialist, a social democrat or just a left liberal but your politics mirrors that of the Webbs, top-down, the party leading the elect to the light.



It’s laudable you have a consistent view, but this is about the leader of a party that is seeking to run the bourgeois state. It’s the very essence of top down. At this point voters want help. Wither away next week.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s laudable you have a consistent view, but this is about the leader of a party that is seeking to run the bourgeois state. It’s the very essence of top down. At this point voters want help. Whither away next week.


wither away. whither doesn't mean wither.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 17, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> wither away. whither doesn't mean wither.



Obliged as ever.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 17, 2019)

I quite like "Whither away". 

"Whither away, friends, whither away"


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 17, 2019)

It’s nice as an archaic question. Whither away?


----------



## treelover (Dec 17, 2019)

What went wrong on December 12th? Answers from Labour Transformed - LabourList

Whatever the answers, they don't include the world transformed, Sabrina Huck is a full on open borders supporter.


----------



## A380 (Dec 17, 2019)

whither withies?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 17, 2019)

Nandy seems likable albeit from the very limited speech I saw of her nominating the speaker.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 17, 2019)

treelover said:


> What went wrong on December 12th? Answers from Labour Transformed - LabourList
> 
> Whatever the answers, they don't include the world transformed, Sabrina Huck is a full on open borders supporter.



The emphasis on intersectionality, on 'soothing' communities and the education of 'organic leaders (presumably to make them non-organic) are all, technically speaking, shit. 

The condemnation of working class people who want to own their own home is the clincher - 'they fell for Thatcher's con trick and were then lost to the fight over building more council houses' I wonder if Sabrina grew up on a council estate?


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 17, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Hundreds of thousands of people signed up, a lot of whom hadn't been involved in anything before or who didn't (maybe still don't) view their involvement as political 'action' so much as just doing stuff in their community - although both build the same networks. Some will do one thing, others will do another, blanket pessimism like yours there is meaningless.


Different goals make different networks. I'm not totally pessimistic either, as I never had any illusions in Labourism or parliamentarism. Here's a couple of examples that you should be pessimistic about... Unite Community members in my area being told to desist from Universal Credit activity and instead act as footsoldiers for the local Labour Party election campaign... the Radical Housing Network imploding due to loads of activists throwing in their lot with Corbynism. It's fucking rubbish. I'm partly optimistic now, basically in the hope that many of these bin off the electoral shite and get back to proper class activities that don't involve propping up the left wing of capital... I'm partly pessimistic because I doubt we'll get many of these back.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> No, you're misunderstanding gambling.
> 
> No bet is a sure fire bet or it wouldn't be a bet. You take a risk which is your stake in search of a reward which is your payout. 5/1 represents good value in terms of risk/reward because it was priced poorly by the bookies. Now that it is 6/4 whatever your stake/risk is it pays out less but the risk is the same.
> 
> ...



Ok mate, whatever, I don’t understand gambling. 

Or mug punters.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s laudable you have a consistent view, but this is about the leader of a party that is seeking to run the bourgeois state. It’s the very essence of top down. At this point voters want help. Wither away next week.


Of course. I'm no arguing that the LP moving to embrace direct democracy is either likely or would be possible under the current political framework of the party. That's exactly why I agree with the comments Serge Forward has made about the LP, its exactly why I don't believe the LP can deliver the outcomes I want.


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2019)

treelover said:


> What went wrong on December 12th? Answers from Labour Transformed - LabourList
> 
> Whatever the answers, they don't include the world transformed, Sabrina Huck is a full on open borders supporter.


It doesn't stop there. She's quite literally a German.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2019)

mauvais said:


> What's incorrect is self-evident; that you've had to go fucking about bringing posts from a different time and context into it to fight an argument not remotely being made here. It's dishonest.


This is one of the silliest things you've said yet. By this reasoning if someone was to argue on thread against measures that stop social mobility and was to argue on another for private schools it would be dishonest to point this out. Totally absurd. Political views don't exist in a vacuum (or at least they shouldn't), part of the point of debate is to tease out the contradictions and inconsistencies made. 

Of course your view on the role of the LP in bringing about the changes you want is relevant to a discussion of how leadership of the LP should be defined. Of course your views on workers control of their community, and direct democracy are relevant to what the role of the leader of a political organisation. To argue otherwise if frankly pathetic. 

Now if you views have changed since you made the posts I linked to fine, views do change but and if you are now saying that you don't hold those positions then ok but the idea that it is unreasonable to interpret your current claims in light of your past claims is garbage. The posts I linked to are  hardly from the dawn of time, they were made within the last year and a bit, and are consistent with many other posts you've made. 



mauvais said:


> Neither I nor the other poster you've quoted have said anything, in the posts being argued, about the necessity of top down leadership, just the necessity of leadership. You've decided the rest of it for yourself and then argued against it.


Both you and Moose specifically drew a, partial, equivalence between the leader of the political party and a CEO. If that is not top down leadership I don't know what is.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 17, 2019)

copliker said:


> It doesn't stop there. She's quite literally a German.



- account manager at cavendish place communications, previously senior account executive, previously political consultant - european public affairs at whitehouse consultancy, previously consultant at dods group plc


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> This is one of the silliest things you've said yet. By this reasoning if someone was to argue on thread against measures that stop social mobility and was to argue on another for private schools it would be dishonest to point this out. Totally absurd. Political views don't exist in a vacuum (or at least they shouldn't), part of the point of debate is to tease out the contradictions and inconsistencies made.
> 
> Of course your view on the role of the LP in bringing about the changes you want is relevant to a discussion of how leadership of the LP should be defined. Of course your views on workers control of their community, and direct democracy are relevant to what the role of the leader of a political organisation. To argue otherwise if frankly pathetic.
> 
> ...


I don't know why I'm humouring this but here we go.

The posts you've pulled from your files and linked to are, respectively, about (1) how I think, not enormously controversially, that the outcomes of parliamentary politics have the biggest impact on conditions in the contemporary UK, and (2) how it's too late in proceedings for anyone but states to mitigate the impact of global warming. For the maintenance of your records I continue to think both of these things are broadly true, at least until you can give me a rough date for the emergence of revolutionary socialism. Some of it should probably be qualified further but I only have finite time on this mortal coil. However, neither of them are directly relevant to "discussion of how leadership of the LP should be defined". For the same reason they're not even really relevant to who is actually in control, just how that control may be manifested - directly or by proxy.

As Moose later pointed out, parliamentary structure is inherently top down but beyond this I've not attempted to assert the necessity for top-down control within the Labour Party. Indeed I would argue the opposite. One of the major failings of Corbynism was that it claimed to be interested in grassroots community organising and listening to people, then in the course of four years did not do those things to any significant degree. It may have listened but it did not reflect as much in its action; it _was _led from the top (not necessarily Corbyn) and this was a serious mistake. It used its people for heavily directed work, largely concerned with electoral campaigning. Only now are its members and satellites starting to show a renewed interest in something else.

This does not mean that a leader is redundant. I don't think the CEO term is very helpful in this discussion, probably a distraction, but I also don't think you understand what that is either; the spectrum of leadership possibilities. CEO is principally a position of responsibility, again an interface position where the blame or credit sits. It's not necessarily directive or prescriptive, though this may often be the case. A successful C-level leader could in the right circumstances do their job purely by enabling other people a long way beneath their hierarchical position; so it is with political leaders. Leadership isn't the same thing as ownership or control. I think amongst other things you're enormously overestimating what these people _do_.

If the Labour Party were to manage to transform itself into something that best manifested itself through local activity, winning the battle outside of electoral politics, then it would very likely still need a leader - one to represent those efforts, both as a symbol to its own people and especially to those yet to be convinced. The latter is what the second part of the first linked post is about, change through leadership of ideas, although it's of secondary importance to any of this. In particular the _semblance _of a traditional leadership role would be necessary in order to meet public electoral expectations; even though that may not be core to the bulk of what it _does_, it would be core to getting elected.

But all of this is a waste of time if you insist on taking it to be endorsement of some top-down elite-led structure.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2019)

If you really cannot see the relevance of workers direct democracy and the view of one's role of the LP in a discussion of what the leadership of LP means, how it should come about and what it's purpose is then you are far more myopic than I believed.


mauvais said:


> CEO is principally a position of responsibility, again an interface position where the blame or credit sits. It's not necessarily directive or prescriptive, though this may often be the case.... I think amongst other things you're enormously overestimating what these people _do_.


The above is nonsense, the creation of CEOs and business leaders has gone had in had with an attack on workers conditions and control.As for me overestimating what they do, well as I've said I think they are utterly redundant in terms of the functioning of the institution but they are crucial in the struggle between workers and employers. Vice-chancellors and headteachers being two prime examples, where once bodies for some type of worker representation (as flawed as they were) might have existed they have been sidelined and marginalised to provide greater opportunity for exploitation by senior management. To think that this is not top down imposition of control is absurd.


mauvais said:


> If the Labour Party were to manage to transform itself into something that best manifested itself through local activity, winning the battle outside of electoral politics, then it would very likely still need a leader - one to represent those efforts, both as a symbol to its own people and especially to those yet to be convinced.


Why? Other organisations exist without the type of leader you are talking about? There might be leaders within direct democracy they need been nothing like the current position of leader of the LP or even what you appear to want.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 17, 2019)

Workers' direct democracy and the Labour Party is as contradictory as the Conservative Party taxing the rich to feed the poor.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> If you really cannot see the relevance of workers direct democracy and the view of one's role of the LP in a discussion of what the leadership of LP means, how it should come about and what it's purpose is then you are far more myopic than I believed.
> 
> The above is nonsense


A joy conversing with you as always.


redsquirrel said:


> the creation of CEOs and business leaders has gone had in had with an attack on workers conditions and control.As for me overestimating what they do, well as I've said I think they are utterly redundant in terms of the functioning of the institution but they are crucial in the struggle between workers and employers. Vice-chancellors and headteachers being two prime examples, where once bodies for some type of worker representation (as flawed as they were) might have existed they have been sidelined and marginalised to provide greater opportunity for exploitation by senior management. To think that this is not top down imposition of control is absurd.


As you would be the first to acknowledge, the exploitative behaviours you describe are the product of the relationship between capital and labour, not a fundamental property of leadership. How the role is commonly manifested speaks to that relationship but does not exclude the possibility that it can be a job of coordination, enablement, assumption of risk and representation rather than necessarily control. And don't pretend I put this forward as an absolute - it is not, it varies wildly.

The whole CEO comparison is probably the least important or interesting element of this whole discussion but your refusal to recognise any other perspective means we're stuck on it.



redsquirrel said:


> Why? Other organisations exist without the type of leader you are talking about? There might be leaders within direct democracy they need been nothing like the current position of leader of the LP or even what you appear to want.


Firstly, what I _want_ - never explored - is a separate matter to what I think is necessary. What I think is necessary - the Labour Party to have a leader and one with stated properties - has obvious rationale that probably shouldn't need to be explained. If you can accept, and you should, that Labour lost the election in large part because of the unpopularity of Corbyn as a person and leader, rather than Labour as a party or proposition, then you already have a big chunk of the evidence. You can argue something about how Labour is not the answer to any of this, and that's fine, but take a look upwards at the thread title and remember what we're meant to be discussing in this context.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 17, 2019)

On _Newsnight _Nandy was nodding along with that cunt MP from Mansfield.

Not a great look.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 18, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Hundreds of thousands of people signed up, a lot of whom hadn't been involved in anything before or who didn't (maybe still don't) view their involvement as political 'action' so much as just doing stuff in their community - although both build the same networks. Some will do one thing, others will do another, blanket pessimism like yours there is meaningless.


I agree with Serge Forward in principle and never entertained the idea of joining Labour. Same time, where we are at isn't the moment for unambiguous 'fuck that, it was shit' statements. After everybody gets through this, I'd hope there might be at least a _recognition _of bottom up community organising from the Labour left, something to build on, something to go beyond the current failed model.

But it has to be recognised that the Corbyn/Labour left model of activism was little more than 'being a Labour left'. That might mean _lots of campaigning, lots of stuff_ (of course for most of the several hundred thousand members, it didn't mean that even). It was doing Labour defined politics, wanting people to join and participate (even if individuals did stuff separately that wasn't 'badged' by Labour). It's essentially an inert form of politics, being a political party - no more, no less. But you don't 'engage with' working class communities by _campaigning _in them.

edit: as said much better by Smokeandsteam in 543


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 18, 2019)

brogdale said:


> On _Newsnight _Nandy was nodding along with that cunt MP from Mansfield.
> 
> Not a great look.



She was organising for Owen Smith to become leader. Again, not a great look.


----------



## tedsplitter (Dec 18, 2019)

Corbyn should stand again at the last minute, fucking win again and send the sensibles into paroxysms of sobbing rage.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That noted working class pursuit.


And RLB was a corporate lawyer before she became an MP...


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Why do you think RLB isn't intelligent? What's wrong with her strategy, and why?


 ok, fair enough, I’m sure she’s intelligent. She’s very wooden, scripted and uninspiring though. Can’t see her having mass appeal. Or any appeal beyond momentum tbh.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> ok, fair enough, I’m sure she’s intelligent. She’s very wooden, scripted and uninspiring though. Can’t see her having mass appeal. Or any appeal beyond momentum tbh.



I am waiting to hear what RLB has to say tbf. She has appeared quite wooden and charisma free previously but, like with the other runners and riders, we really need to hear what they’ve learnt from the experience of last week and how they’d change the Party and what they’d keep. 

Stewards in Unite normally get the chance to attend a meeting where the candidates set their stall out to us. Despite the gigantic flaws in our union and the conservative layer that controls everything, these events often allow you to look these people in the eye and form a view.


----------



## Supine (Dec 18, 2019)

tedsplitter said:


> Corbyn should stand again at the last minute, fucking win again and send the sensibles into paroxysms of sobbing rage.



Spoken like a complete Tory


----------



## Libertad (Dec 18, 2019)

A380 said:


> whither withies?
> 
> View attachment 193272



Due to recent developments needs more axe.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> And RLB was a corporate lawyer before she became an MP...


And?


----------



## Sue (Dec 18, 2019)

Starter just on the Today programme. God but he's shit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 18, 2019)

Sue said:


> Starter just on the Today programme. God but he's shit.


Heard Peston last night claim private polling showed a majority of labour members would back Starmer. Haha fuck off.


----------



## andysays (Dec 18, 2019)

Sue said:


> Starter just on the Today programme. God but he's shit.


Non-Starter?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> And?


That notable working class profession (which was your problem with Starmer).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2019)

The push is very def on, big EXCLUSIVE front page  piece in the guardian today. Trying to set the agenda early door across all fronts. And they probably don't even know they're doing it- no overt planning required or even conscious understanding that they're doing it, peston (get your hair cut and do your shirt up ffs) and guardian started all ready.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

I’d vote for Starmer


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> That notable working class profession (which was your problem with Starmer).


I think you need to re-read. 

Mr ski said - in way reminiscent of your claim that Keir Starmer didn't go to privates school that you had to take back -  that Keir Starmer isn't posh (now accepts that he is) and i responded by listing all the ways in which he is posh. To this you added _human rights lawyer_, either to suggest that once being a human rights lawyer whilst being all the things i listed makes him invulnerable to ever being poshor is another example of his poshness. Which is it?

I never had a problem with someone being a human rights lawyer, i didn't bring it up - you did - and i then said i had no problem with it. You seem to be uncharacteristically  all over the shop on this thread. I never mentioned RLB either yet you seem to think i have been supporting her or something so try and throw her in my face in your defence of private school posh boy starmer.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2019)

A new dawn has broken, has it not?


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2019)

brogdale said:


> A new dawn has broken, has it not?



Many things are broken, not seen dawn on the list yet.


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2019)

Just watching Ian Lavery on Novara, ffs he's shit. Some people have been suggesting him. Although some people have been seriously suggesting Corbyn doesn't go too.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Many things are broken, not seen dawn on the list yet.


Heading into David Brent territory.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> That notable working class profession (which was your problem with Starmer).


RLB at least has a working class background - dad was a docker and union rep in Salford, then she eventually went to Man Met to do a degree. She represents a constituency a couple of miles from where she was born. Hardly privilege.


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2019)

My bet is between a final showdown between Long-Bailey and Starmer with the appropriate factions behind each of them. Suspect Yvette Cooper might have a go at some point as well.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> My bet is between a final showdown between Long-Bailey and Starmer with the appropriate factions behind each of them.



Continuity Corbynites vs Continuity Remainers. Could get tasty


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Just watching Ian Lavery on Novara, ffs he's shit. Some people have been suggesting him. Although some people have been seriously suggesting Corbyn doesn't go too.



Yup. If he wasn't an ex-miner(?) with an accent he wouldn't have been on the show, right? A clear indication of the shallow cultural portrayal of the w/c that the entire media/political scene seems to have signed up to this election.  

Novara appear to be both flailing around and under sustained attack right now. Hmm. I don't mind them as much as I perhaps should. I think they can produce mildly interesting, watchable content. Politically they've backed themselves into a corner without walls here though.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

...and in amongst this desperate rush to find a woman with an accent to be next leader it's worth remembering that the winner was an Old Etonian caricature.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

smoke tabs, drink beer, subscribe to Novara Media


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Continuity Corbynites vs Continuity Remainers. Could get tasty



Labour always descend into horrible civil war after their, fairly regular, crushing defeats. 

The fact that both dogs in this particular fight have been routed by ordinary people makes this one highly anticipated (by me).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

chilango said:


> ...and in amongst this desperate rush to find a woman with an accent to be next leader it's worth remembering that the winner was an Old Etonian caricature.



You realise that by dismissing several candidates as 'women with accents' you're not attacking the idea of tokenism, but reinforcing it?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

chilango said:


> Novara appear to be both flailing around and under sustained attack right now. Hmm. I don't mind them as much as I perhaps should.



Fuck off and watch tyskysour then 

On a serious note I clocked Ash Sarkar praising Lucy Powell on twitter. I think we can guess where fully automatic luxury communism is heading....


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> You realise that by dismissing several candidates as 'women with accents' you're not attacking the idea of tokenism, but reinforcing it?



I'm not referring to the candidates themselves but the reasons people are giving for backing them.


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2019)

chilango said:


> Yup. If he wasn't an ex-miner(?) with an accent he wouldn't have been on the show, right? A clear indication of the shallow cultural portrayal of the w/c that the entire media/political scene seems to have signed up to this election.
> 
> Novara appear to be both flailing around and under sustained attack right now. Hmm. I don't mind them as much as I perhaps should. I think they can produce mildly interesting, watchable content. Politically they've backed themselves into a corner without walls here though.



Where they under attack? And who from?

I do watch/listen to them a bit although the content has got worse politically the last few years. Some of the presenters and commentators are fucking annoying too, especially Sarkar is much better on TV rather than Novara where she just acts like she's chatting with some mates and tries to play the joker far too much.

It is annoying to watch them not miss a beat from pre to post election without any noticeable reflection on their cheerleading previous positions.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 18, 2019)

All MPs are posh. They might not have always been posh and some are a lot posher than others but they are all still posh. Because they are fucking MPs.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> All MPs are posh. They might not have always been posh and some are a lot posher than others but they are all still posh. Because they are fucking MPs.



No. They are possessive of cultural and social capital because they are MP's. They are also possessive of relatively high levels of economic capital.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No. They are possessive of cultural and social capital because they are MP's. They are also possessive of relatively high levels of economic capital.


Yeah posh


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah posh



Ian Lavery is not posh.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Where they under attack? And who from?
> 
> I do watch/listen to them a bit although the content has got worse politically the last few years. Some of the presenters and commentators are fucking annoying too, especially Sarkar is much better on TV rather than Novara where she just acts like she's chatting with some mates and tries to play the joker far too much.
> 
> *It is annoying to watch them not miss a beat from pre to post election without any noticeable reflection on their cheerleading previous positions.*



I watched some of that Lavery piece last night and your comment is spot on. Ash seems to have just doubled down, I detect that she is actually feeling justified in some way for her previous thoughts about the white w/c. (she likes to say white w/c).


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Fuck off and watch tyskysour then
> 
> On a serious note I clocked Ash Sarkar praising Lucy Powell on twitter. I think we can guess where fully automatic luxury communism is heading....



I’m surprised she hasn’t come up more often before, though I suppose people who would like her have Kier to cheer for. 

She was behind Ed’s election ‘strategy’ so a sure fire winner.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Ian Lavery is not posh.


Ok he just has far greater social, cultural, and economic capital than any normal person. But it's simpler and easier and clearer to say posh instead of talking about social, cultural, and economic capital.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

The new Parliament is only 54% comprehensively educated. 29% went to private schools. There are 11 Old Etonians.

88% of them went to University, 54% to Russell Group Universities and 21% to Oxbridge.

Just for reference like.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ok he just has far greater social, cultural, and economic capital than any normal person. But it's simpler and easier and clearer to say posh instead of talking about social, cultural, and economic capital.



Nope. They are different things. Posh is visible. Social and culture capital is much more nebulous and insidious


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

_Habitus_ is word we're looking for the here. The bodily manifestation of lived social history/experience.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2019)

These are the oxbridge ones::

Keir Starmer
Lucy Powell
Yvette Cooper
Diane Abbott
Nia Griffith
Barry Gardiner
Richard Burgon


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

chilango said:


> The new Parliament is only 54% comprehensively educated. 29% went to private schools. There are 11 Old Etonians.
> 
> 88% of them went to University, 54% to Russell Group Universities and 21% to Oxbridge.
> 
> Just for reference like.



The people’s parliament


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> nebulous and insidious



Posh cunt


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The people’s parliament






			
				a gushing media said:
			
		

> "most diverse ever!"



..and that's true too


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Posh cunt


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

Nandy the only (potential) challenger that i could see shifting the LPs outward towards the community. For all her other faults.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> These are the oxbridge ones::
> 
> Keir Starmer
> Lucy Powell
> ...



And amazingly RLB's first shadow cabinet..."all the talents"


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ok he just has far greater social, cultural, and economic capital than any normal person. But it's simpler and easier and clearer to say posh instead of talking about social, cultural, and economic capital.



When we are going somewhere nice Mrs Moose likes to put on her _high social, cultural and economic capital frock. _Ok she calls it her ‘posh’ frock.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Nandy the only (potential) challenger that i could see shifting the LPs outward towards the community. For all her other faults.



She's made the most interesting noises definitely. But, RLB hasn't said _anything _yet as far as I can see. Or Rayner.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> When we are going somewhere nice Mrs Moose likes to put on her _high social, cultural and economic capital frock. _Ok she calls it her ‘posh’ frock.



Trivialise it if you want but its an important point


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Trivialise it if you want but its an important point



No intention of doing so. You’ll have your work cut out if you want to police all the throwaway gags in this forum.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> When we are going somewhere nice Mrs Moose likes to put on her _high social, cultural and economic capital frock. _Ok she calls it her ‘posh’ frock.



You jest, but clothing is an important signifier of cultural capital. 

Hence all the attacks on Corbyn (and Foot back in the day) for being "scruffy".

For example, Barthes notes "the tendency of every bodily covering to insert itself into a formal and normative system that is recognised by society" i.e. dress is clear signifier of the wearer's integration into the society in which they live.

You can spot a posh boy miles off by what they are wearing and how they are wearing it.

Kulz, talking about school uniforms, notes that appropriate (and normative) style is that of a white m/c model. Whilst Bourdieu talks about the link between clothes and habitus, a m/c anxiety about external appearances and the "valorization of appearance in work". 

There's plenty more.

But as Smokeandsteam responded it is important to recognise the relationship between the various forms of capital and "poshness" and how they these forms of capital are deployed to acquire or maintain class status.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> She's made the most interesting noises definitely. But, RLB hasn't said _anything _yet as far as I can see. Or Rayner.



The Mirror reckons Rayner will be stepping back in favour of Long-Bailey.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 18, 2019)

I don't think Thornberry has a chance personally.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 18, 2019)

Latest from pp


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Latest from pp
> 
> View attachment 193365



It's a good sign in that it looks unlikely for Cooper, Lewis and Thornberry imo.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

Fifty to one on Rayner would be worth a punt if I weren't to lazy to go through all that ID checking rigamarole you need to get an online gambling account these days.

I dunno what planet people are on if they see Starmer getting the support of the membership.


----------



## andysays (Dec 18, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> I don't think Thornberry has a chance personally.


If you don't take that back by the end of the day, she's taking you to court


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Fifty to one on Rayner would be worth a punt



I’ve had a quid on it.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

I thought they were saying Rayner was likely to run as deputy to RLB.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> I thought they were saying Rayner was likely to run as deputy to RLB.



Twitter rumour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Twitter rumour.


Twattershite, to use the technical term


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> If you don't take that back by the end of the day, she's taking you to court



#priorities


----------



## mauvais (Dec 18, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Twitter rumour.


Angela Rayner clears way for Rebecca Long-Bailey to run for Labour leader


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 18, 2019)

I want my quid back


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

chilango said:


> You jest, but clothing is an important signifier of cultural capital.
> 
> Hence all the attacks on Corbyn (and Foot back in the day) for being "scruffy".
> 
> ...



For the avoidance of doubt, Mrs Moose isn’t running for office. She just likes a night out now and then.


----------



## andysays (Dec 18, 2019)

Guardian reporting that Thornberry has thrown her hat into the ring,  so everyone be careful what they say about her...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 18, 2019)

Bizarre that Starmer front runner


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Bizarre that Starmer front runner


Name recognition as much as anything else.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2019)

The BBC news (well BBC6/6 music at least, others might have also taken this up) have started calling him _Sir Keir Starmer_ and putting his views at the front of their bulletins. I bet they weren't formally told to do this.

(edit: network controller is oxbridge)


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Bizarre that Starmer front runner



He looks the part.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Heard Peston last night claim private polling showed a majority of labour members would back Starmer. Haha fuck off.


I don't doubt it.  This is the Labour Party we are talking about. 

I wonder if they'll do the £3 a vote thing again?  


Smokeandsteam said:


> She's made the most interesting noises definitely. But, RLB hasn't said _anything _yet as far as I can see. Or Rayner.



She's made a vote for me video.  I learned from it that she's from Manchester.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> Guardian reporting that Thornberry has thrown her hat into the ring,  so everyone be careful what they say about her...



She's blown it.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 18, 2019)




----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Name recognition as much as anything else.



With the general public.  
This stuff gets presented like it's some sort of plebiscite.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

ska invita said:


>




That's a dreadful logo.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

ska invita said:


>




My sources in the Labour party seem quite consonant with that. 
Starmer's links with the second referendum campaign don't play well, and his 'left' credentials (ie. lack of) are not popular with the 'left' bit of the party.  Which is pretty big now.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's a dreadful logo.



Thrusting.
Forward-moving.

Swashbuckling.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

What sort of cunt goes around being called 'Keir' anyway?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> What sort of cunt goes around being called 'Keir' anyway?


i wouoldnt be surprised if he was named after K Hardie


----------



## Nice one (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> What sort of cunt goes around being called 'Keir' anyway?


Hardiely know where to start with that one


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2019)

ska invita said:


>




Bit cringe inducing the beginning of that. Looks like the committee was trying too hard to get as many 'working class cultural references' in as possible. And 'take back control' of our economy? I see what they did there. _Very subtle._


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> What sort of cunt goes around being called 'Keir' anyway?



Some construction to be sure.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Bit cringe inducing the beginning of that. Looks like the committee was trying too hard to get as many 'working class cultural references' in as possible. And 'take back control' of our economy? I see what they did there. _Very subtle._



To be fair that seems to be a video made for the GE. At a national level going on about Manchester United is not a good way to make yourself popular.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 18, 2019)

ska invita said:


>




Namechecks (proper) man united mcdonalds happy meals and the fall/madchester in the opening - she gets my vote

Werent happy meals introduced in 1986 though the year the first drive through was introduced in the uk fallowfield of all places?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

Nice one said:


> Namechecks (proper) man united mcdonalds happy meals and the fall/madchester in the opening - she gets my vote
> 
> Werent happy meals introduced in 1986 though the year the first drive through was introduced in the uk fallowfield of all places?



As Mark E Smith was keen to point out The Fall were a Salford band, not a Manchester band.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Bit cringe inducing the beginning of that. Looks like the committee was trying too hard to get as many 'working class cultural references' in as possible. And 'take back control' of our economy? I see what they did there. _Very subtle._



The Northern cultural references are a little OTT sure but then the demand for a 'Northern' leader to solve Labour's problems is also a little OTT. 

As for the rest of it, I think it's pretty good actually. Especially the 'Take Back Control' of our economy bit. If only that had been Labour's slogan from the day after the referendum, we wouldn't be in this mess now. It makes a lot of sense as a slogan going forward because we know what the Tories actually push through isn't going to restore any sense of control to working class communities. Not sure if this is a GE video or her video for leadership but I like the slogan and I hope she keeps using it. 

Generally I feel slightly more optimistic for watching that.


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. *Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below*. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.




where was this culture of resistance?


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> My sources in the Labour party seem quite consonant with that.
> Starmer's links with the second referendum campaign don't play well, and his 'left' credentials (ie. lack of) are not popular with the 'left' bit of the party.  Which is pretty big now.



Which is probably why he is keen to say that the party should not ‘lurch to the right’ as a consequence of the election.

Keir Starmer sets out case for 'radical Labour government'


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 18, 2019)

even kinnock jnr was saying 'we can't go back to wishy washy centrism' yesterday among a load of other shit.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Which is probably why he is keen to say that the party should not ‘lurch to the right’ as a consequence of the election.
> 
> Keir Starmer sets out case for 'radical Labour government'



Yes, just speaking to a member now who says Starmer is saying some pretty 'left' things, considering.  Maybe if Starmer stays on message a lot of them will come round.  Not counting the further left who will dwell on his days with the CPS, granted.


----------



## Nice one (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> As Mark E Smith was keen to point out The Fall were a Salford band, not a Manchester band.


City fan as well -


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> even kinnock jnr was saying 'we can't go back to wishy washy centrism' yesterday among a load of other shit.



Not exactly though - he's pushing the Blue Labour line along with the rest about being socially conservative, tough on crime and national security and a little bit racist. But they don't think they need to change economically. They think they can have slightly nicer version of centrist Nu Labour and just disguise it with an image overhaul.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think you need to re-read.
> 
> Mr ski said - in way reminiscent of your claim that Keir Starmer didn't go to privates school that you had to take back -  that Keir Starmer isn't posh (now accepts that he is) and i responded by listing all the ways in which he is posh. To this you added _human rights lawyer_, either to suggest that once being a human rights lawyer whilst being all the things i listed makes him invulnerable to ever being poshor is another example of his poshness. Which is it?
> 
> I never had a problem with someone being a human rights lawyer, i didn't bring it up - you did - and i then said i had no problem with it. You seem to be uncharacteristically  all over the shop on this thread. I never mentioned RLB either yet you seem to think i have been supporting her or something so try and throw her in my face in your defence of private school posh boy starmer.


I just brought up human rights lawyer to emphasise that, despite going to oxford etc, he has lovely left wing credentials.
The impression I get (don’t mean from you) is that Starmer is disliked because he’s some sort of blairite.
(I also think I misread who said what about RLB)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> Guardian reporting that Thornberry has thrown her hat into the ring,  so everyone be careful what they say about her...


She's got no chance


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2019)

Fucking Thornberry, ffs. The candidate to unite the left as everyone dislikes her?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Bizarre that Starmer front runner


Yeh this race a marathon not a sprint and there'll be snickers later on


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

Urgh, Thornberry. Go away! Tanks off my keir’s lawn!


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yes, just speaking to a member now who says Starmer is saying some pretty 'left' things, considering.  Maybe if Starmer stays on message a lot of them will come round.  Not counting the further left who will dwell on his days with the CPS, granted.



He is not going to convince the left. But he may be able to carve out some ground between himself and Blair.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> What sort of cunt goes around being called 'Keir' anyway?



Son of a Labour supporting tool maker apparently.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

He was named after Keir Hardie.

Ok I’m going. My keir love is making me irrational!


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> She's got no chance



Michael Gove has a better chance.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Ok I’m going. My keir love is making me irrational!



I fear you have the causality backwards here.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I just brought up human rights lawyer to emphasise that, despite going to oxford etc, he has lovely left wing credentials.
> The impression I get (don’t mean from you) is that Starmer is disliked because he’s some sort of blairite.
> (I also think I misread who said what about RLB)


Being a human rights lawyer at best indicates something about a belief in freedoms.  It says nothing about what that person thinks about economic structures.


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yes, just speaking to a member now who says Starmer is saying some pretty 'left' things, considering.  Maybe if Starmer stays on message a lot of them will come round.  Not counting the further left who will dwell on his days with the CPS, granted.



I know lots of middle class labour supporters who want Starmer, but i bet if he is elected,  the RW media will dig up some of his uman rights work and spin it as unpatriortic, the only slightly bulletproof(no pun intended) would be Dan Jarvis, though i think Spiney Norman has some negative stories about him.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I fear you have the causality backwards here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> I know lots of middle class labour supporters who want Starmer, but i bet if he is elected,  the RW media will dig up some of his uman rights work and spin it as unpatriortic, the only slightly bulletproof(no pun intended) would be Dan Jarvis, though i think Spiney Norman has some negative stories about him.


It doesn't matter who gets elected the media will put the boot in, let's just take that as read


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not exactly though - he's pushing the Blue Labour line along with the rest about being socially conservative, tough on crime and national security and a little bit racist. But they don't think they need to change economically. They think they can have slightly nicer version of centrist Nu Labour and just disguise it with an image overhaul.



No he wasn't, on economics, he was saying no rtn to the Blair years, what he would vote for is another thing.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 18, 2019)

Yes, Labour’s path to victory definitely lies in becoming more middle-class friendly.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> ... but i bet if he is elected,  the RW media will dig up some of his uman rights work and spin it as unpatriortic...



This would have felt like a bizarre argument not too long ago.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Being a human rights lawyer at best indicates something about a belief in freedoms.  It says nothing about what that person thinks about economic structures.


I know but just watch the mclibel documentary when he takes on McDonald’s for free. So... inspiring!  

Edit - is the fucking bbc now emphasising the SIR part or am I paranoid?!


----------



## kabbes (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I know but just watch the mclibel documentary when he takes on McDonald’s for free. So... inspiring!


But nothing to do with being “left wing”


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

Hope he hasn’t defended any terrorist suspects. The daily mail will have a field day, the cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I know but just watch the mclibel documentary when he takes on McDonald’s for free. So... inspiring!



Pity that the whole McLibel thing was effectively a put up job by an undercover cop. Talking of undercover cops, how many unsafe convictions compromised by the actions of undercover cops did Starmer preside over while head of the CPS? Over 60 last time I counted.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

thoughts on the trio? looking like below at the moment, with L & SC possibly switching

Starmer L
Rayner DL
RLB SC


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

No no I really am off, I’m hungover and spouting nonsense I know. I just think keir can unite the party! And he looks like a traditional leader too which, let’s face it, is sadly important.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 18, 2019)

He will unite the party, to be fair.  Just not in the way you mean.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Pity that the whole McLibel thing was effectively a put up job by an undercover cop. Talking of undercover cops, how many unsafe convictions compromised by the actions of undercover cops did Starmer preside over while head of the CPS? Over 60 last time I counted.


Helen steel and David Morris who were sued by McDonalds weren’t undercover cops though.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Talking of undercover cops, how many unsafe convictions compromised by the actions of undercover cops did Starmer preside over while head of the CPS? Over 60 last time I counted.



Stop it


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Dec 18, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh this race a marathon not a sprint and there'll be snickers later on



Topical


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Stop it



I'll stop it when that fucker stops locking my mates up.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> Topical



Snickers are to be taken internally.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> where was this culture of resistance?


It no longer exists.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> No no I really am off, I’m hungover and spouting nonsense I know. I just think keir can unite the party! And he looks like a traditional leader too which, let’s face it, is sadly important.



That can play both ways, in favour because he fits the archetype, against because everyone is sick of the archetype. Angela Merkel would suggest its not necessary to win.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

Online leak of video footage obtained in a number of Labour Party offices over the last few days!


Spoiler: Warning: Can't verify this


----------



## Nice one (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> As Mark E Smith was keen to point out The Fall were a Salford band, not a Manchester band.



Plus gives working class racist mancunian singer morrissey a run for his money in the working class racist mancunian singer stakes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> No he wasn't, on economics, he was saying no rtn to the Blair years, what he would vote for is another thing.



He doesn't mean it though. They don't mean it. They are every bit as dishonest as Johnson.


----------



## LDC (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Pity that the whole McLibel thing was effectively a put up job by an undercover cop. Talking of undercover cops, how many unsafe convictions compromised by the actions of undercover cops did Starmer preside over while head of the CPS? Over 60 last time I counted.



No, it wasn't a 'put up job' ffs.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> thoughts on the trio? looking like below at the moment, with L & SC possibly switching
> 
> Starmer L
> Rayner DL
> RLB SC


Thoughts on Lisa nandys chance?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'll stop it when that fucker stops locking my mates up.


I’m sorry to hear that  I don’t know enough about what happened but I don’t think the undercover cops thing was starmer’s fault though, was it?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Thoughts on Lisa nandys chance?



High but I hope she tanks, she is awful.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Thoughts on Lisa nandys chance?



she would have to replace Starmer in that line up as Rayner will be DL and Nandy won't make a SC


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> High but I hope she tanks, she is awful.



Go on, tell us why, she was warning what was happening years ago, set up the centre for towns, etc.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> My sources in the Labour party



Sorry this made me laugh


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> where was this culture of resistance?



I was in ‘acute day hospital’ recently. Lots of opportunities to resist. And I took them.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

Has Nandy committed to welfare/NHS/social care commitments of the 2019 manifesto?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I hope she tanks, she is awful.



Because she’s not a Marxist?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Thoughts on Lisa nandys chance?


TBH I think it's too early to really start to assess chances. We don't know how long Corbyn is going to remain in post, we don't know how the election is going to work (will supporters be allowed this time?).


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Edit - is the fucking bbc now emphasising the SIR part or am I paranoid?!



I don’t want to sound like a conspiraloon, but I’ve just checked old bbc articles and they’ve only started calling him SIR keir since he said he was thinking of running for leader...


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I don’t want to sound like a conspiraloon, but I’ve just checked old bbc articles and they’ve only started calling him SIR keir since he said he was thinking of running for leader...



Probably only calls himself Keir to fool the masses. Check his birth certificate


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

I met the Communist League candidate for Tottenham before the election. He’s mental. Tried to get him to sort out a trip to Cuba. Still hoping.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 18, 2019)

Surely Starmer as shadow Brexit secretary shares the responsibility for the election failure and shouldn't stand just as Corbyn and McDonnell aren't.


----------



## killer b (Dec 18, 2019)

Knotted said:


> Surely Starmer as shadow Brexit secretary shares the responsibility for the election failure and shouldn't stand just as Corbyn and McDonnell aren't.


I've noticed the story on this has changed very swiftly to it being exclusively a problem of leadership, so he's in the clear.


----------



## killer b (Dec 18, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> TBH I think it's too early to really start to assess chances. We don't know how long Corbyn is going to remain in post, we don't know how the election is going to work (will supporters be allowed this time?).


Supporters will be allowed, they're still in the rule book.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I met the Communist League candidate for Tottenham before the election. He’s mental. Tried to get him to sort out a trip to Cuba. Still hoping.





killer b said:


> Supporters will be allowed, they're still in the rule book.



Could always join JLM. Mebbe get a holiday in the old country out of it. And a vote in the lab leadership thing.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2019)

killer b said:


> Supporters will be allowed, they're still in the rule book.


I suppose the freeze date will become an important issue again? Do you know if members have been told yet when it will be from?


----------



## killer b (Dec 18, 2019)

They haven't been told yet, no.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> Go on, tell us why, she was warning what was happening years ago, set up the centre for towns, etc.



Was she _fuck. _She doesn't know what's happening now. Supported Owen Smith against Corbyn, hasn't served in Shadow Cabinet since the referendum result. 




MadeInBedlam said:


> Because she’s not a Marxist?



None of them are Marxists, try again.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 18, 2019)

killer b said:


> They haven't been told yet, no.


Hmm...thanks.
I suppose the left will want it pegged back as far as possible, with the right hoping to gain from 'returners to the flock'?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Was she _fuck. _She doesn't know what's happening now. Supported Owen Smith against Corbyn, hasn't served in Shadow Cabinet since the referendum result.
> 
> None of them are Marxists, try again.



She understands what’s happening now better than the others. 

Her political position is set in stone is it?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> She understands what’s happening now better than the others.
> 
> Her political position is set in stone is it?



I am 100% convinced she does not understand the situation better than the others and I see little reason to believe her politics will shift dramatically, but if you want to convince me that's not the case, please go ahead


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I am 100% convinced she does not understand the situation better than the others and I see little reason to believe her politics will shift dramatically, but if you want to convince me that's not the case, please go ahead



You could well be right


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You could well be right



I take no pleasure in it. But yes.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2019)

Personally can’t see either RLB or Starmer being to move labour forward from the current mess. Starmer especially.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's a dreadful logo.


Political logos with arrows, generally dodgy.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Political logos with arrows, generally dodgy.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 18, 2019)

Those are road signs


----------



## Wilf (Dec 18, 2019)

Milord starmer is a cunt for accepting a knighthood. And more generally.
Thornberry's alleged comments to flint resonate with her white van man stuff, so she's no chance.
Hope Rayner gets it, just because of her solid working class background and she seems decent, talks normally etc. Not really heard much of her wider vision so don't know about that. She also doesn't seem to be getting much momentum (pun not intended) though it's early days.

As others have said, my choice  would be whoever thinks about the 're-engaging project' in terms of moving back to communities, not being fussed about keeping things within the labour brand etc. NoIt holding me breath but if there's every a point where that should be the blatantly obvious thing to do, it's now.

Edit: no doubt mentioned by others, but thornberry is an islington mp iirc, which is a handicap in this election.


----------



## Cid (Dec 18, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Milord starmer is a cunt for accepting a knighthood. And more generally.
> Thornberry's alleged comments to flint resonate with her white van man stuff, so she's no chance.
> Hope Rayner gets it, just because of her solid working class background and she seems decent, talks normally etc. Not really heard much of her wider vision so don't know about that. She also doesn't seem to be getting much momentum (pun not intended) though it's early days.



I think Rayner's saying she'd run for DL to RLB's leader.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 18, 2019)

Cid said:


> I think Rayner's saying she'd run for DL to RLB's leader.


Yeah, I saw that quoted on here, was still hoping she'd go for leader. Also, deputy seems an ill defined role, she might be better holding out for a key shadow cabinet brief instead.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

Rayners strength would be PMQs, does the DL role allow that? Or is it a under certain circumstances thing?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 18, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> Rayners strength would be PMQs, does the DL role allow that? Or is it a under certain circumstances thing?



They usually stand in if the leader is unavailable don't they. I guess they can decide when that is but the leader would have to do most of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> They usually stand in if the leader is unavailable don't they. I guess they can decide when that is but the leader would have to do most of them.


Thornberry seemed to stand in for Corbyn at PMQ's rather than Watson doing it


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 18, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Thornberry seemed to stand in for Corbyn at PMQ's rather than Watson doing it



That's true - I suppose although the deputy would normally do it you don't have to send them. You might not if they happened to be a massive cunt, for example.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That's true - I suppose although the deputy would normally do it you don't have to send them. You might not if they happened to be a massive cunt, for example.


Like Tom Watson, the nonce's friend


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 18, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Thornberry seemed to stand in for Corbyn at PMQ's rather than Watson doing it



Lidington usually did it for the Tories in the PMs absence, and he was Leader of the Commons. Thorneberry deputised firstly as Shadow Foreign Sec and then as shadow First Secretary of State, so I'm guessing there's no rules about it at all.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 18, 2019)

The DL is a _party _post, not a parliamentary one - the leader choices his/her shadow cabinet, they don't actually have to have the DL in it.

I rather doubt Thornberry thinks she has a chance of getting the leaders job - she's running so that the next leader has to recognise her as a 'player' and a 'big beast' so that she gets a place in shadow cabinet. If she didn't run she'd be almost guaranteed to be sent off to the back benches within moments of the new leaders election, and I rather doubt that her ego is interested in that...


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 18, 2019)

Cid said:


> I think Rayner's saying she'd run for DL to RLB's leader.


AFAICS neither Rayer nor Long-Bailey have made any statements. The Guardian piece is basically justing repeating twitter speculation (nice work if you can get it).


> However, in a move one colleague described as “sisterly” she is now expected to run for deputy leader instead – smoothing the path for Long-Bailey.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2019)

Turns out Starmer was involved with a Trot group in the 80s. Some Pabloite thing according to Twitter if anyone's interested...


----------



## binka (Dec 18, 2019)

I bet the Tories have some shit to throw at Starmer from his time as DPP if he becomes leader. There were some stories early last year about his role in the Warboys case

Keir Starmer breaks silence amid growing pressure over John Worboys' release


----------



## Cid (Dec 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> The DL is a _party _post, not a parliamentary one - the leader choices his/her shadow cabinet, they don't actually have to have the DL in it.
> 
> I rather doubt Thornberry thinks she has a chance of getting the leaders job - she's running so that the next leader has to recognise her as a 'player' and a 'big beast' so that she gets a place in shadow cabinet. If she didn't run she'd be almost guaranteed to be sent off to the back benches within moments of the new leaders election, and I rather doubt that her ego is interested in that...



Will she get enough PLP nominations though? I imagine the left of the party will want to get behind one candidate... Leaves plenty of nominations on the centre/right mind you, and they might go for it just to try and throw a spanner in the works of whoever the main left candidate is. I suppose it's worth it to her.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

I’m sure a photo will emerge of Starmer drinking tea with Corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2019)

It's worth reading from the oldest to the newest posts on here about Keir Starmer.

For some people anyway.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 18, 2019)

Cid said:


> Will she get enough PLP nominations though? I imagine the left of the party will want to get behind one candidate... Leaves plenty of nominations on the centre/right mind you, and they might go for it just to try and throw a spanner in the works of whoever the main left candidate is. I suppose it's worth it to her.



They only need 10 PLP votes to (iirc) get on the list - she stands no chance of actually winning, but I don't think that's what's important. It don't think it's a 'what will fuck up the left?' tactic, I think it's a 'what will keep me in a position where I can attempt to steer party policy?'.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> It's worth reading from the oldest to the newest posts on here about Keir Starmer.
> 
> For some people anyway.



Good to jog my memory. He’s got some form, that’s for sure, fucking snake.


----------



## Cid (Dec 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> They only need 10 PLP votes to (iirc) get on the list - she stands no chance of actually winning, but I don't think that's what's important. It don't think it's a 'what will fuck up the left?' tactic, I think it's a 'what will keep me in a position where I can attempt to steer party policy?'.



10%, so 22 nominations.


----------



## Cid (Dec 18, 2019)

Dunno why that's not working... link

I was thinking more that the right of the PLP could back a leftish candidate likely to leach votes off the main left candidate.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> I’m sure a photo will emerge of Starmer drinking tea with Corbyn



Not in an office their won’t. He’s never been on one. Only factories


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 18, 2019)

Cid said:


> 10%, so 22 nominations.



They have 204 MPs so 21 surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> They have 204 MPs so 21 surely?


It's MPs+MEPS - 10 more of them.


----------



## Cid (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> They have 204 MPs so 21 surely?



Includes MEPs, so after Jan 31st (?) 21, at the moment 22.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Not in an office their won’t. He’s never been on one. Only factories



maybe somewhere hot, on a veranda. Drinking mint tea together.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> It's worth reading from the oldest to the newest posts on here about Keir Starmer.
> 
> For some people anyway.



Do you think there's been any thought put in by his team about all the dirt the tories could throw his way? It seems a daft decision to put him forward with what they could potentially pin on him.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 18, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> Do you think there's been any thought put in by his team about all the dirt the tories could throw his way? It seems a daft decision to put him forward with what they could potentially pin on him.



Tories getting into dirt-flinging is true of *all* candidates though. I'm no fan of Starmer, but _every_ potential candidate has skeletons with which the Tories/Tory press will make hay.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 18, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Tories getting into dirt-flinging is true of *all* candidates though. I'm no fan of Starmer, but _every_ potential candidate has skeletons with which the Tories/Tory press will make hay.



they'll certainly have the knives out for whoever it is. Starmer though appears a special case for extra mud slinging, stuff that will stick that none of the others seem to have, that I'm aware of.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 18, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> they'll certainly have the knives out for whoever it is. Starmer though appears a special case for extra mud slinging, *stuff that will stick that none of the others seem to have, that I'm aware of.*



I think I'm less confident than you about that, but for me that's probably the immediate aftermath of a particularly nasty General Election period as much as anything else


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 19, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Tories getting into dirt-flinging is true of *all* candidates though. I'm no fan of Starmer, but _every_ potential candidate has skeletons with which the Tories/Tory press will make hay.



This is certainly true, but it’s not the only factor. Corbyn was deeply unpopular after four years of carpet bombing by the press, but also unpopular with many people who would instinctively disbelieve anything they wrote. 

You can argue that this is simply permeation of their influence, but he had too much baggage and no sympathetic story to hawk. These are considerations. Can Starmer present himself as likeable or trustworthy given a bruising career? Would for example Rayner’s personal story play better? Not that these things matter so much if no candidate has the competency for the other demands of the role.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 19, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> This is certainly true, but it’s not the only factor. Corbyn was deeply unpopular after four years of carpet bombing by the press, but also unpopular with many people who would instinctively disbelieve anything they wrote.
> 
> You can argue that this is simply permeation of their influence, but he had too much baggage and no sympathetic story to hawk. These are considerations. Can Starmer present himself as likeable or trustworthy given a bruising career? Would for example Rayner’s personal story play better? Not that these things matter so much if no candidate has the competency for the other demands of the role.



Johnson's personal story is that of a bullying, arrogant, racist, posh, corrupt, lying incompetent given only the barest of whitewashes by some panel show appearances and avuncular bumbling. 

And Corbyn's initial presentation was as a decent, honest, not quite Jimmy Stewart do-gooder for a fair portion of the press/party. Right up until he started winning anyway.

A backstory is only as relevant as the spin makes it and only as good as press and politicos allow it to be. No point judging a potential leader on it.


----------



## hermitical (Dec 19, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> I’m sure a photo will emerge of Starmer drinking tea with Corbyn



Fruit tea at that.Or coffee, at a coffee bar. Bloody metropolitan elites


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 19, 2019)

hermitical said:


> Fruit tea at that.Or coffee, at a coffee bar. Bloody metropolitan elites



Nicaraguan coffee.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 19, 2019)

Clive Lewis entering the running. 


> Lewis also called for Labour to embrace proportional representation, which would likely necessitate working with other parties on the left in order to form a government.


Not sure he'll even make it onto the ballot.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2019)

What other parties of the left Clive? The greens 800 000 votes won't change sweet FA if they all went to labour even without any going the other way as part of the deal. Who else can he mean?


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Clive Lewis entering the running.
> 
> Not sure he'll even make it onto the ballot.



He’s a more maverick addition (less easily pigeonholed into the left or right of Labour and so probably lacking enough support) and his words on democratising the Party are interesting. He’s done well to keep hold of South Norwich and he has a bit of real life experience.

The PR thing is odd, sort of laudable, but in our system it’s a bit like saying you don’t expect to win.


----------



## treelover (Dec 19, 2019)

Lisa campaign begins, anyone know what she was like as Hammersmith councillor?

Clive is good, but bit of loose cannon, part time TA though in past, worth some votes with ex service people.


----------



## Supine (Dec 19, 2019)

How is the leader elected? Is it a slick process?

I'm no fan of the Tories but they seemed to have a well organised process where you could see the candidates and their progress.


----------



## treelover (Dec 19, 2019)

Good speech, she will have to learn how to project though if she becomes leader,


----------



## treelover (Dec 19, 2019)

Actually i think clive would be a good deputy leader, bit of a bruiser.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 19, 2019)

This isn't really based on anything and not political (although from what I know of him he has some shit politics) but I get bad vibes off that Clive Lewis one


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 19, 2019)

treelover said:


> Good speech, she will have to learn how to project though if she becomes leader,



Bless her, a fine speech, she gets what's at stake with parliament and the labour party. Lisa is lovely , you can see why she gets asked out when canvassing. Whether the leadership votes will come to her i'm note sure.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 19, 2019)

Clive Lewis, eh?






Just asking questions, I'm sure.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2019)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Lisa is lovely , you can see why she gets asked out when canvassing.


bit creepy tbf


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> bit creepy tbf


“Bless her”


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 19, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> This isn't really based on anything and not political (although from what I know of him he has some shit politics) but I get bad vibes off that Clive Lewis one



He’s an MP?


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> This isn't really based on anything and not political (although from what I know of him he has some shit politics) but I get bad vibes off that Clive Lewis one


There's some proper wtf moments in this interview tbf. A stillborn leadership run IMO.

_I’ve spent 40 plus years as Clive Lewis, and one of the things you have to come to terms with is you are no longer just Clive Lewis – you are Clive Lewis MP. It does come with responsibilities, and so someone asking to be in a picture with you, and you putting your arm around them and hugging them in, [I have to remember that I’m doing it as] Clive Lewis MP, in the public eye. So there is a power dynamic, which means that you just can’t do that. So I have had to change how I engage with people – women especially. It’s a really sad thing to say, but it is a sign of our times. I also have to think about that when I’m alone with female activists. You never want to be in a situation where someone can make a claim when it’s their word against yours. Those are the things you have to think about now: you shouldn’t have to, and I never did before, but I think since the #MeToo movement, there’s a more heightened sense about those power relationships. 

I also had to apologise to someone for picking them up and spinning them around, and that’s something I would have done without thinking in my time as Clive Lewis. I’ve gone through my life without having a reputation for being a groper – as far as I’m aware no one at the BBC in the 12 years I worked there claimed that I was a groper. I’m sure that someone would have said if that was the case, or if I’d unduly touched someone in the wrong way. And you know, in the army it never happened. So for me to now, as an MP, suddenly start thinking that I can get away with groping people, which I’ve not done for the vast majority of my adult life… why would I start now? _

Clive Lewis: ‘It’s time to tell the truth’


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 19, 2019)

Fuuuuck


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 19, 2019)

Methinks he doth protest too much


----------



## mauvais (Dec 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's some proper wtf moments in this interview tbf. A stillborn leadership run IMO.
> 
> _I’ve spent 40 plus years as Clive Lewis, and one of the things you have to come to terms with is you are no longer just Clive Lewis – you are Clive Lewis MP. It does come with responsibilities, and so someone asking to be in a picture with you, and you putting your arm around them and hugging them in, [I have to remember that I’m doing it as] Clive Lewis MP, in the public eye. So there is a power dynamic, which means that you just can’t do that. So I have had to change how I engage with people – women especially. It’s a really sad thing to say, but it is a sign of our times. I also have to think about that when I’m alone with female activists. You never want to be in a situation where someone can make a claim when it’s their word against yours. Those are the things you have to think about now: you shouldn’t have to, and I never did before, but I think since the #MeToo movement, there’s a more heightened sense about those power relationships.
> 
> ...


Not sure what we're supposed to make of this. I guess it's what Steve Bruce is up to now, maybe on behalf of Vice.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's some proper wtf moments in this interview tbf. A stillborn leadership run IMO.
> 
> _I’ve spent 40 plus years as Clive Lewis, and one of the things you have to come to terms with is you are no longer just Clive Lewis – you are Clive Lewis MP. It does come with responsibilities, and so someone asking to be in a picture with you, and you putting your arm around them and hugging them in, [I have to remember that I’m doing it as] Clive Lewis MP, in the public eye. So there is a power dynamic, which means that you just can’t do that. So I have had to change how I engage with people – women especially. It’s a really sad thing to say, but it is a sign of our times. I also have to think about that when I’m alone with female activists. You never want to be in a situation where someone can make a claim when it’s their word against yours. Those are the things you have to think about now: you shouldn’t have to, and I never did before, but I think since the #MeToo movement, there’s a more heightened sense about those power relationships.
> 
> ...


Total wrong 'un


----------



## Cid (Dec 19, 2019)

Supine said:


> How is the leader elected? Is it a slick process?
> 
> I'm no fan of the Tories but they seemed to have a well organised process where you could see the candidates and their progress.



Nomination:  

10% of MPs and MEPS, And; 
5% of CLPs or 5% of affiliates (from at least 3 affiliates, including 2 unions).

Election:

MPs, members, affiliate members and registered supporters can all vote. 1 person one vote, non-collegiate.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's some proper wtf moments in this interview tbf. A stillborn leadership run IMO.
> 
> _I’ve spent 40 plus years as Clive Lewis, and one of the things you have to come to terms with is you are no longer just Clive Lewis – you are Clive Lewis MP. It does come with responsibilities, and so someone asking to be in a picture with you, and you putting your arm around them and hugging them in, [I have to remember that I’m doing it as] Clive Lewis MP, in the public eye. So there is a power dynamic, which means that you just can’t do that. So I have had to change how I engage with people – women especially. It’s a really sad thing to say, but it is a sign of our times. I also have to think about that when I’m alone with female activists. You never want to be in a situation where someone can make a claim when it’s their word against yours. Those are the things you have to think about now: you shouldn’t have to, and I never did before, but I think since the #MeToo movement, there’s a more heightened sense about those power relationships.
> 
> ...


The irony was, when I clicked on that website, it said 'we need your consent'.


----------



## Cid (Dec 19, 2019)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Bless her, a fine speech, she gets what's at stake with parliament and the labour party. Lisa is lovely , you can see why she gets asked out when canvassing. Whether the leadership votes will come to her i'm note sure.



Owen Smith.


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Clive Lewis, eh?
> 
> View attachment 193499
> 
> ...




And wtf is this?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 19, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> And wtf is this?



What's confusing you about it?


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> What's confusing you about it?



I’m pissed.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2019)

Cid said:


> Nomination:
> 
> 10% of MPs and MEPS, And;
> 5% of CLPs or 5% of affiliates (from at least 3 affiliates, including 2 unions).
> ...


In terms of the registered supporters, there's certainly some leeway for the NEC to vary the rules conditions, iirc. For example the amount went up from something like a £3 donation to a £25 donation, to get a vote, between Corbyn's first and second victories. Can't remember whether the NEC has the power to vary things even more?


----------



## Dawn Crescendo (Dec 19, 2019)

I don't know will be the next leader of the Labour party but I do know that whoever it is will have a very long uphill struggle. Much as I dislike the idea it will need to be someone like Blair but unlike him they will need to keep out of conflicts in the middle and near east and they will need to reconnect with the working class.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 19, 2019)

Thing is, blair wasn't a cunt just because of iraq. He was a cunt for all sorts of reasons. New labour was shit.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's some proper wtf moments in this interview tbf. A stillborn leadership run IMO.
> 
> _I’ve spent 40 plus years as Clive Lewis, and one of the things you have to come to terms with is you are no longer just Clive Lewis – you are Clive Lewis MP. It does come with responsibilities, and so someone asking to be in a picture with you, and you putting your arm around them and hugging them in, [I have to remember that I’m doing it as] Clive Lewis MP, in the public eye. So there is a power dynamic, which means that you just can’t do that. So I have had to change how I engage with people – women especially. It’s a really sad thing to say, but it is a sign of our times. I also have to think about that when I’m alone with female activists. You never want to be in a situation where someone can make a claim when it’s their word against yours. Those are the things you have to think about now: you shouldn’t have to, and I never did before, but I think since the #MeToo movement, there’s a more heightened sense about those power relationships.
> 
> ...


That line about being '40 years Clive Lewis' and suggesting he can't do the things he used to as Clive Lewis: It has the feel of being a rehearsed line, ready for this leadership bid. But it still makes him sound more gropey.

Pre-Clive Lewis MP Clive Lewis - he's the real victim here...


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2019)

As an interview to launch his leadership bid, it's quite something


----------



## Dawn Crescendo (Dec 19, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, blair wasn't a cunt just because of iraq. He was a cunt for all sorts of reasons. New labour was shit.


 But he won three elections on the trot and actually getting elected is what matters.


----------



## Cid (Dec 19, 2019)

Wilf said:


> In terms of the registered supporters, there's certainly some leeway for the NEC to vary the rules conditions, iirc. For example the amount went up from something like a £3 donation to a £25 donation, to get a vote, between Corbyn's first and second victories. Can't remember whether the NEC has the power to vary things even more?



Yeah, I think they can... At a guess they'll keep them high, for basically the same reasons their counterparts upped them. Don't think it's overly likely that there'll be an influx of left registered supporters.

Also note there aren't any major time limits on joining/registering (there are limits but they're defined in terms of the gap between formal announcement of timetable and time to vote).


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 19, 2019)

Dawn Crescendo said:


> But he won three elections on the trot and actually getting elected is what matters.


Strictly speaking I think changing things for the better is what matters


----------



## Cid (Dec 19, 2019)

Dawn Crescendo said:


> I don't know will be the next leader of the Labour party but I do know that whoever it is will have a very long uphill struggle. Much as I dislike the idea it will need to be someone like Blair but unlike him they will need to keep out of conflicts in the middle and near east and they will need to reconnect with the working class.



So nothing like Blair then.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2019)

This is a solid pitch from Starmer this evening - he's way ahead of everyone else.

Another future is possible – for our country and our party - LabourList


----------



## two sheds (Dec 19, 2019)

Dawn Crescendo said:


> But he won three elections on the trot and actually getting elected is what matters.



what you do when you've been elected is what matters though


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 19, 2019)

Starmer - a remainer, yes?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 19, 2019)

Marty1 said:


> I’m pissed.



Well, that doesn't usually stop people posting here.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> This is a solid pitch from Starmer this evening - he's way ahead of everyone else.
> 
> Another future is possible – for our country and our party - LabourList


This is quite a paragraph for somebody who was DPP/head of CPS. Anyway, I suppose it's some sort of positive that they all have to speak the language of the left now, from a place a few years back where they wouldn't even mention the s word. Maybe it's not a positive thing, I dunno.


----------



## Humberto (Dec 19, 2019)

Preferably not a 'best of a bad bunch' scenario. There aren't really any high profile 'good with the public' types. Happy to be corrected but none spring to mind. I don't buy the 'they must be Northern and a woman' shit either. That's to miss the point. Hold them to account and come up with a distinctive set of policies.

I suppose now that the Tories have the mandate they can 'fix' the BBC (already obvious), and wield the antisemitism trump card. And suck up to American elites. They (Tories/Johnson) are shit. Anyone or any group not shit are welcome to apply.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 20, 2019)

two sheds said:


> what you do when you've been elected is what matters though



It does, but what should now be obvious to even the slowest of slow learners is that in politics you can either have _some _of what you want, and _some_ of what you aren't keen on but can live with, or you can have pretty much none of what you want and a great deal of what you don't want.

This week's lesson is primarily focused at arch-remainers and Corbyn fans.

Labour have got to return to _some _form of Blairism to return to power - the bits they need to concentrate on are _looking _like a government in waiting and not a bunch of NUS twats fighting in a sack, and the ruthless control of, and pushing of, the message.

Blairism would not have produced the scattergun, gangfuck manifesto that canvassers and candidates couldn't either keep up with or reel off.

That's not primarily about this or that policy, it's about the development of policy, message management, and media management.

The 2017 manifesto/campaign was far more blairite in its professionalism than 2019 - this time there was no central, one line message, the grid was all over the place, and candidates simply weren't trusted to speak to their local media, so they got no coverage.


----------



## bimble (Dec 20, 2019)

Bit off topic but have three word slogans (take back control, get brexit done ) always been an important thing or is that a recent development ? Did Blair have one ? (Cant remember wasn't paying attention back then). For the many just wasn't very good.
eta some of these are so bad:
List of U.K. political slogans - Wikipedia


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 20, 2019)

Humberto said:


> I suppose now that the Tories have the mandate they can 'fix' the BBC (already obvious), *and wield the antisemitism trump card. *And suck up to American elites. They (Tories/Johnson) are shit. Anyone or any group not shit are welcome to apply.



This will quickly become something more difficult for the Tories to exploit, because even a quarter-competent new leader will *know* that taking _proper_ action on tackling antisemitism in the Labour Party has to be something to prioritise, and very quickly.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 20, 2019)

bimble said:


> For the many just wasn't very good.



"For the many not the few" was pretty good as a slogan I thought.

But its failure to cut through was because "Get Brexit done" was so much "better" (inverted commas deliberate   ).

Plus there were all sorts of other anti-Labour factors in play as well .....


----------



## maomao (Dec 20, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It does, but what should now be obvious to even the slowest of slow learners is that in politics you can either have _some _of what you want, and _some_ of what you aren't keen on but can live with, or you can have pretty much none of what you want and a great deal of what you don't want.
> 
> This week's lesson is primarily focused at arch-remainers and Corbyn fans.
> 
> ...


 So you're using the word Blairite to mean 'capable of a well organised election campaign' and not referring to a political position at all? Because it felt like they got elected in order to continue privatising everything, cut back the welfare state and abandon the working class rather than the other way round.

 Also Blair wouldn't have just lost the 2019 election he would have lost his seat as well.


----------



## Libertad (Dec 20, 2019)

Dawn Crescendo said:


> But he won three elections on the trot and actually getting elected is what matters.



Huzzah! Here come the centrist entryists to save us from ourselves.


----------



## Almor (Dec 20, 2019)

Dawn Crescendo said:


> But he won three elections on the trot and actually getting elected is what matters.


 
Then join the tories, they won the last election, help em win a few more instead of Blairite shitting all over any hope of a meaningful labour party?


----------



## maomao (Dec 20, 2019)

Boris Johnson is an even more successful Blairite than Blair himself.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> So you're using the word Blairite to mean 'capable of a well organised election campaign' and not referring to a political position at all? Because it felt like they got elected in order to continue privatising everything, cut back the welfare state and abandon the working class rather than the other way round.
> 
> Also Blair wouldn't have just lost the 2019 election he would have lost his seat as well.


This. Also the first paragraph does not seem to match up with the latter paragraphs.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> So you're using the word Blairite to mean 'capable of a well organised election campaign' and not referring to a political m position at all? Because it felt like they got elected in order to continue privatising everything, cut back the welfare state and abandon the working class rather than the other way round.
> 
> Also Blair wouldn't have just lost the 2019 election he would have lost his seat as well.



No, I'm using in a wider way than just that - it was was also about choosing what one or two things were important/critical, and putting the other 59 things you really wanted to do on the back burner. Blairism also understood that having a conversation with the electorate that meant the ground work for your manifesto was laid also meant having a (sometimes difficult) conversation with your party about what was, and was not, achievable - and getting the party to understand that it's the electorate who get the final say, not the party.


----------



## Dawn Crescendo (Dec 20, 2019)

Libertad said:


> Huzzah! Here come the centrist entryists to save us from ourselves.





Almor said:


> Then join the tories, they won the last election, help em win a few more instead of Blairite shitting all over any hope of a meaningful labour party?



To me it is no longer of interest .. I am 67 years of age and in poor health by the time you lot have learned the lessons I will be underground somewhere dead as a Dodo.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 20, 2019)

Dawn Crescendo said:


> To me it is no longer of interest .. I am 67 years of age and in poor health by the time you lot have learned the lessons I will be underground somewhere dead as a Dodo.



Sorry to hear that and I hope it’s not so.

I don’t think anybody wants the Labour Party to choose a course that locks it out of power. But Blair squandered that power and the result is where we are now, working class communities who don’t see Labour as its natural allies.

The Labour Party has to offer more than reheated Thatcherism. Finding the sweetspot for that to be successful electorally is not easy, but if Labour doesn’t then people will conclude they are better off doing their politics locally and through non-Parliamentary means.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It does, but what should now be obvious to even the slowest of slow learners is that in politics you can either have _some _of what you want, and _some_ of what you aren't keen on but can live with, or you can have pretty much none of what you want and a great deal of what you don't want.
> 
> This week's lesson is primarily focused at arch-remainers and Corbyn fans.
> 
> ...


any return to any form of blairism is electoral suicide. what the labour party have to do if they desire to return to government is move forwards rather than back.


----------



## chilango (Dec 20, 2019)

Worth remembering that this defeat is very much a consequence of Blair's victory.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 20, 2019)

chilango said:


> Worth remembering that this defeat is very much a consequence of Blair's victory.



We could root it ultimately back to Blair, but it's important not to lose sight of Ed Miliband's specific role had in scuppering David Miliband's leadership chances and becoming the least convincing contender for PM this century.

That's not an endorsement of DM, just a genuine feeling on how EM's complete failure to connect and oftentimes ludicrous performance on camera lost any chance Labour had in 2015 with the knock on effect of galvanizing a misguided left surge when Corbyn threw his hat in.

*misguided in terms of the realistic chances of winning back power.


----------



## Supine (Dec 20, 2019)

chilango said:


> Worth remembering that this defeat is very much a consequence of Blair's victory.



In that labour stopped trying to appeal to large sections of the population by only talking to the left maybe. To win an election you need mass appeal so you need to be on message with defence, security and a host of other subjects rather than just redistribution of wealth. 

That's no criticism of redistribution but it's not enough on its own.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 20, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> We could root it ultimately back to Blair, but it's important not to lose sight of Ed Miliband's specific role had in scuppering David Miliband's leadership chances and becoming the least convincing contender for PM this century.
> 
> That's not an endorsement of DM, just a genuine feeling on how EM's complete failure to connect and oftentimes ludicrous performance on camera lost any chance Labour had in 2015 with the knock on effect of galvanizing a misguided left surge when Corbyn threw his hat in.
> 
> *misguided in terms of the realistic chances of winning back power.



" misguided left surge " that's been reflected in pockets of similar response to the growing crisis in late stage cap all over the world, cos that's where we are /and are headed  ? Only thing remotely " misguided" about it is arguably our idea that there's now somehow a Parliamentary Road out of the misery / chaos / madness..


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 20, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, blair wasn't a cunt just because of iraq. He was a cunt for all sorts of reasons. New labour was shit.



Yes, I don't recall his tenure being a time of peace and plenty. Mostly I remember a series of dreadful authoritarian home secretaries criminalising everything that wasn't nailed down, privatisations so dodgy even the tories would have steered clear of them, and the start of the project to undermine the very idea of a welfare state. Before he even got elected Blair had managed to completely discredit the idea of raising taxes in a progressive way, and the legacy of that is clearly still with us.

Anyway, 'why Blair was a cunt' is another thread and probably one we don't need right now.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 20, 2019)

Lisa Nandy is growing on me, but it does pain me that she voted for BoZo’s deal, legitimising it and allowing him to say it was “oven ready”, and is now “shocked” that he’s taken out the workers rigts provisions etc.


----------



## Supine (Dec 20, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Lisa Nandy is growing on me, but it does pain me that she voted for BoZo’s deal, legitimising it and allowing him to say it was “oven ready”, and is now “shocked” that he’s taken out the workers rigts provisions etc.



Didn't they vote to allow it to go through committee stages rather than a vote of acceptance?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 20, 2019)

Supine said:


> Didn't they vote to allow it to go through committee stages rather than a vote of acceptance?


Yes. You think that was a good idea?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Dec 20, 2019)

Still... she sounds pretty good. Might go down well with people.


----------



## Supine (Dec 20, 2019)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Yes. You think that was a good idea?



I don't think any of this is a good idea!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 20, 2019)

chilango said:


> Worth remembering that this defeat is very much a consequence of Blair's victory.



Pardon? Are you forgetting how well Labour did in the 2017, vote share up 10% compared to 2015?

You can't blame the drop from 41% in 2017 to 32% in 2019 on Blair, that's down to the current [lack of] leadership.


----------



## chilango (Dec 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Pardon? Are you forgetting how well Labour did in the 2017, vote share up 10% compared to 2015?
> 
> You can't blame the drop from 41% in 2017 to 32% in 2019 on Blair, that's down to the current [lack of] leadership.



No. But I can blame the shift in focus from Labour away from its "working class heartlands" towards "middle England" on the Blair era. It's no coincidence that from the late 90s we saw the BNP emerge as an electoral force in exactly the same sort of seats that have just been won by the Tories.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> This is a solid pitch from Starmer this evening - he's way ahead of everyone else.
> 
> Another future is possible – for our country and our party - LabourList



Irritatingly good.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Pardon? Are you forgetting how well Labour did in the 2017, vote share up 10% compared to 2015?
> 
> You can't blame the drop from 41% in 2017 to 32% in 2019 on Blair, that's down to the current [lack of] leadership.



Wat?

Don't the current leadership get some credit for pushing the vote up by 10% in two years and 2017?

And didn't Blair's constant demands and pressure for Labour to become a Remain party have an effect in 2019?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2019)

the most pressing question is when will derf next try to show us how thick we are and how clever he is, now he seems to have retired that political genius Don Troooomp


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 20, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Wat?
> 
> Don't the current leadership get some credit for pushing the vote up by 10% in two years and 2017?



Yes, they had re-built the Labour vote, shame they went on to piss it away again. 



> And didn't Blair's constant demands and pressure for Labour to become a Remain party have an effect in 2019?



No. The likes of Mcdonnell, Starmer & co were the reason for Labour's confused message on Brexit, basically a remain position, they had much more effect than anything Blair said.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Still Northern.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blasphemous cunt!


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Yes, they had re-built the Labour vote, shame they went on to piss it away again.


it isn't really true that they rebuilt the Labour vote - the trend in the former heartlands was still in a downwards trajectory - hence Mansfield going, etc.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 20, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, blair wasn't a cunt just because of iraq. He was a cunt for all sorts of reasons. New labour was shit.



☝️ The far left acting like a mob again


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> it isn't really true that they rebuilt the Labour vote - the trend in the former heartlands was still in a downwards trajectory - hence Mansfield going, etc.


Very true .


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2019)

Well Angela Rayner has , if it’s an authentic Twitter account, just promised that under her leadership Labour would re apply to join the EU at first opportunity . Timing couldn’t have been better.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Well Angela Rayner has , if it’s an authentic Twitter account, just promised that under her leadership Labour would re apply to join the EU at first opportunity . Timing couldn’t have been better.


this is her authentic twitter account and it says nothing of the sort.

Angela Rayner  (@AngelaRayner) on Twitter


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2019)

it's so easy to check this stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2019)

Course it ain't real!


----------



## kebabking (Dec 20, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Well Angela Rayner has , if it’s an authentic Twitter account, just promised that under her leadership Labour would re apply to join the EU at first opportunity . Timing couldn’t have been better.



I don't think it is. It's not on her account.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> this is her authentic twitter account and it says nothing of the sort.
> 
> Angela Rayner  (@AngelaRayner) on Twitter


You’re right that’s me speed reading Twitter . It’s a parody account .


----------



## ska invita (Dec 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> This is a solid pitch from Starmer this evening - he's way ahead of everyone else.
> 
> Another future is possible – for our country and our party - LabourList


... And that's how OJ Simpson got off


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2019)

Only a candidate who fell under the evil eye of mason would say that - so maybe Lewis.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2019)

Even Vince Cable has been saying it's time to move on - no serious politician is going to be making a case to rejoin for at least a few years.


----------



## chilango (Dec 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> Even Vince Cable has been saying it's time to move on - no serious politician is going to be making a case to rejoin for at least a few years.



So Swinson then?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 20, 2019)

Fun to watch ‘hard left’ (lol) remainer Vermin and the blairite remainer vermin slug it out


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2019)

she doesn't even fulfil the politician criteria anymore, never mind the serious bit.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 20, 2019)

Rejoiners of all the talents


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 20, 2019)

Rejoin Direct Action Federation


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 20, 2019)

chilango said:


> So Swinson then?





killer b said:


> she doesn't even fulfil the politician criteria anymore, never mind the serious bit.


----------



## binka (Dec 20, 2019)

killer b said:


> Even Vince Cable has been saying it's time to move on - no serious politician is going to be making a case to rejoin for at least a few years.


I wouldn't bet against the lib dems moving to a rejoin policy in 2020. Cable originally said they should respect the 2016 result before changing his mind


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 20, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> You’re right that’s me speed reading Twitter . It’s a parody account .



She has a parody account? Is there such big competition amongst internet satirists?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 21, 2019)

Galaxy-brain stuff here:


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 21, 2019)

Blair says it doesn’t matter who is Labour next leader if the party politics are a continuation of the far left that led to this current massive defeat.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 21, 2019)

"Far left" 

Of course, the voting masses have been clamouring for a new Blairite project and the Tinge did so well


----------



## maomao (Dec 22, 2019)

Slimeball tub of lard Roy Hattersley calling for the PLP to defy any Corbynite leader elected by the membership in the Grauniad today and blaming Corbyn for their fourth defeat in a row as if he knew anything about electability. Don't remember his 'genuine democratic socialism' doing so well with the electorate in 87 and 92 when the pointless cunt was deputy leader.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> Slimeball tub of lard Roy Hattersley calling for the PLP to defy any Corbynite leader elected by the membership in the Grauniad today and blaming Corbyn for their fourth defeat in a row as if he knew anything about electability. Don't remember his 'genuine democratic socialism' doing so well with the electorate in 87 and 92 when the pointless cunt was deputy leader.



The chutzpah of Hattersley calling for the return of shadow cabinet elections (which I agree with) when he was part of the right of the party that opposed them and campaigned for the removal of elections is priceless.


----------



## treelover (Dec 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> Slimeball tub of lard Roy Hattersley calling for the PLP to defy any Corbynite leader elected by the membership in the Grauniad today and blaming Corbyn for their fourth defeat in a row as if he knew anything about electability. Don't remember his 'genuine democratic socialism' doing so well with the electorate in 87 and 92 when the pointless cunt was deputy leader.



Observer is really going for Corbynism/Momentum, Rawnsley saying it should be eradicated.


----------



## 03gills (Dec 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> So obvious and yet you’ve been completely unable to provide any coherent evidence for it across multiple threads of being asked for this.
> 
> Here’s something obvious: Labour were unpopular under Brown, unpopular under Miliband and actually saw their vote rise in 2017 under Corbyn, who presented some policies that were — gasp — popular.  Here’s something else obvious: Labour’s biggest problem right now is trying to hold together the Brexit-voting base in the north of the country with their remain-voting support in the south, which is an issue not remotely of Corbyn’s making.  You’ve swallowed a narrative of it being all about leaders in the face of all historical evidence.  And in repeatedly insisting on it, you’re making an absolute tit of yourself.



The fact he still managed over 10 million votes considering the onslaught is a fucking miracle imo. I do think adopting a second ref was daft though, Labour were polling 40% on average until that happened. Young people were voting labour last time because of the manifesto not brexit. Once Labour adopted that as policy the election was as good as lost. People can mock Johnson all day long, but he wasn't continually repeating 'get brexit done' for nothing. This only became 'the brexit election' because Labour fell into the trap laid by Campbell & Mandelson. If Labour had maintained its 'jobs first brexit' & 'respecting the referendum' I guarantee there would've been no push for another election by Johnson or Cummings. 

I still reckon they would've dropped off from their 12.8 million total in 2017, but the way FPTP works likely means the leave seats staying red would've prevented a Tory majority.


----------



## 03gills (Dec 22, 2019)

As for who should eventually replace him (not that i'm convinced he should be replaced at the moment) someone with Corbyn's beliefs but a harder edge, willing to confront the shit stirrers in the PLP & really challenge the media narrative & not cave to the Blairites. I love JC, but he failed to confront internal enemies & even after the 2016 chicken coup was still trying to play nice. That was his Achilles heel.

Sort of a Kinnock 1985 moment, but with the roles reversed.

They'll probably have to be a brexiteer as well.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 22, 2019)

The thing about Corbyn that genuinely frustrated me is that he is a poor orator.  He doesn’t explain his philosophy or his reasoning at all will.  He has positions that I find perfectly explicable and straightforward to defend and he then seems to fuck it up.  If I could have a replacement with heart is the same place but Blair’s oratory ability to convince and persuade, that’d be great.  

but if I have to choose just one of those things, it’ll be the heart in the right place every time.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 22, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> No. The likes of Mcdonnell, Starmer & co were the reason for Labour's confused message on Brexit, basically a remain position, they had much more effect than anything Blair said.



I don't deny any of that but Blair remains and influential figure in the PLP and McDonnell gave in to pressure from that wing of the party. The two can't be seperated.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 22, 2019)

treelover said:


> Observer is really going for Corbynism/Momentum, Rawnsley saying it should be eradicated.



Meh. They've got excited because Corbyn is finally going but it doesn't mean they're any less irrelevant.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Galaxy-brain stuff here:






Indeed.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't deny any of that but Blair remains and influential figure in the PLP and McDonnell gave in to pressure from that wing of the party. The two can't be seperated.



This McDonnell, the shrinking violet, the one who gives into blairites when they try to persuade him of things the opposite of everything he's believed his entire political life - is he any relation to John McDonnell?

This is a laughably shit narrative - Corbyn might be a bit of a wet blanket, but blairites couldn't talk JMcD of out a burning car. The remainiacs might have been harping on, but the leadership weren't listening to the PLP at any stage during this total gangfuck. They might have been listening to the party membership, but not the PLP.

It's desperate blame avoidance, and it stinks like a dead Badger.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 22, 2019)

(((((Badgers)))))


----------



## cantsin (Dec 22, 2019)

03gills said:


> As for who should eventually replace him (not that i'm convinced he should be replaced at the moment)* someone with Corbyn's beliefs but a harder edge*, willing to confront the shit stirrers in the PLP & really challenge the media narrative & not cave to the Blairites. I love JC, but he failed to confront internal enemies & even after the 2016 chicken coup was still trying to play nice. That was his Achilles heel.
> 
> Sort of a Kinnock 1985 moment, but with the roles reversed.
> 
> They'll probably have to be a brexiteer as well.



that person doesn't exist in the PLP at present unfort. and due to Corbyn, John McDonn, RLB etc p*ssing about for 4 yrs re : Open Selection , that's not going to change over the next 5 - 10 yrs now = dismal little mid - long term legacy


----------



## Supine (Dec 22, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The thing about Corbyn that genuinely frustrated me is that he is a poor orator.  He doesn’t explain his philosophy or his reasoning at all will.  He has positions that I find perfectly explicable and straightforward to defend and he then seems to fuck it up.  If I could have a replacement with heart is the same place but Blair’s oratory ability to convince and persuade, that’d be great.
> 
> but if I have to choose just one of those things, it’ll be the heart in the right place every time.



A big part of leadership is to share a vision and to empower a team to deliver it. If you can't say it clearly you can't lead.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> A big part of leadership is to share a vision and to empower a team to deliver it. If you can't say it clearly you can't lead.


Leadership schmeadership!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> A big part of leadership is to share a vision and to empower a team to deliver it. If you can't say it clearly you can't lead.


I'm interested in what you have to say, do you have a powerpoint presentation and a slack group I can read


----------



## Supine (Dec 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm interested in what you have to say, do you have a powerpoint presentation and a slack group I can read



I don't know what slack is. I'll leave that to you youngsters. 

I stand by what I say though. How can you 'lead' if you don't tell everyone where you are going?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2019)

Supine said:


> I stand by what I say though. How can you 'lead' if you don't tell everyone where you are going?



Can't really disagree with this, it was more the business speak in the first post I wasn't keen on


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 22, 2019)

There are a number of Corbyn fans on here. Those who think there is weight and wider meaning to the top down policy making, party control and Parliamentary shenanigans. Those who think that the only lesson to learn is: keep on keeping on. No change needed. If the class reject the party then the blame is with the former and not the latter. But most do a better job of hiding it than 03gills


----------



## Supine (Dec 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Can't really disagree with this, it was more the business speak in the first post I wasn't keen on



you need to think outside the box to find a paradigm shift if you want to embed key learnings from the leadership focus group.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 23, 2019)

Supine said:


> you need to think outside the box to find a paradigm shift if you want to embed key learnings from the leadership focus group.



you forgot to preface that with "moving forward".


----------



## Spandex (Dec 23, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The thing about Corbyn that genuinely frustrated me is that he is a poor orator.  He doesn’t explain his philosophy or his reasoning at all will.  He has positions that I find perfectly explicable and straightforward to defend and he then seems to fuck it up.


I agree with this. And there's a lot more to criticize Corbyn for, which many, many people have been doing for the past two weeks. However, since it's the season of goodwill I'm going to do some sticking up for Corbyn.

It's important to remember that Corbyn never planned, expected or really wanted to be leader of the Labour party. He just happened to be the token left winger standing when - following Milliband's defeat and, specifically, acting leader Harmen's decision for the party to abstain on the Welfare Reform Bill vote - the membership picked the 'not a centrist, not a moderate' option on the leadership ballot.

He may not've been the best person for the job, but he was the only person in a position to move the party left. For all his personal failings, bad decisions and poor choice of friends he has moved not only the party but the whole Overton window to the left.

Since he spent his whole leadership defending against political attacks, with centrists eager to seize any opportunity to undermine him and replace him with one of their own, there has never been any opportunity for someone better to take over from him. Until now.

For the first time in decades the party has a chance and a realistic possibility to pick a left wing leader of their choice. I just hope they don't fuck it up.


----------



## Supine (Dec 23, 2019)

I'd argue that Corbyn failed to shift the overton window because his policies were rejected by the electorate. He shifted the party but not the country. He certainly didn't 'win the argument' with the last manifesto.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 23, 2019)

Supine said:


> I'd argue that Corbyn failed to shift the overton window because his policies were rejected by the electorate. He shifted the party but not the country. He certainly didn't 'win the argument' with the last manifesto.


I disagree. Since the 90s Labour have lived by the idea that they can only win from the right. Corbyn's policies have been generally popular. His social democratic ideas have been discussed as a realistic possibility in a way they haven't been for a very long time. Even the Financial Times - hardly a hotbed of socialism - was favourable to them. Johnson felt the need to make big spending promises (for all his promises are worth) to compete with Labour's plans. 

What lost the election was Corbyn (due to both fair and unfair criticism), his team's ineptitude and Brexit.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 23, 2019)

Supine said:


> I'd argue that Corbyn failed to shift the overton window because his policies were rejected by the electorate. He shifted the party but not the country. He certainly didn't 'win the argument' with the last manifesto.


This lunacy shows a misunderstanding of what the Overton window is.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 23, 2019)

I don't think it should (only) be attributed to one person or even the LP as a whole but to argue that there has not been a shift in the policies of political parties over the last five years seems like wilful blindness.

In 2010 Labour, the Tories and the LDs had manifestos promising huge cuts in government spending. In 2015 Labour, the Tories and the LDs were still all explicitly signed up to cuts of public services. By 2017 Labour had not just jacked any talk of spending cuts but was pushing for state involvement in utilities, and so successfully that the other parties had to concede ground to them. In 2019 no major party was talking about cuts of public services, in fact all had manifestos promising increased spending.

The above is fundamentally down to the actions of people rather than Corbyn or the LP but there is no doubt Corbyn supported such a movement.


----------



## Supine (Dec 23, 2019)

kabbes said:


> This lunacy shows a misunderstanding of what the Overton window is.



You might want to go a correct Wikipedia then


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 23, 2019)

kebabking said:


> This McDonnell, the shrinking violet, the one who gives into blairites when they try to persuade him of things the opposite of everything he's believed his entire political life - is he any relation to John McDonnell?
> 
> This is a laughably shit narrative - Corbyn might be a bit of a wet blanket, but blairites couldn't talk JMcD of out a burning car. The remainiacs might have been harping on, but the leadership weren't listening to the PLP at any stage during this total gangfuck. They might have been listening to the party membership, but not the PLP.
> 
> It's desperate blame avoidance, and it stinks like a dead Badger.



This is fantasy. McDonnell bottled it worse than Corbyn and admitted it. Keep up.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 23, 2019)

Corbyn won all the arguments.


----------



## treelover (Dec 23, 2019)

> The above is fundamentally down to the actions of people rather than Corbyn or the LP but there is no doubt Corbyn supported such a movement.



Er, can't say i saw mass movements on the streets for rail nationalisation, against UC, etc.


----------



## treelover (Dec 23, 2019)

New project to move fwd, keep LP intact
Start a conversation - Labour Together

Lucy Powell, Ed, involved

survey about GE campaign here

Review of Election Campaign


----------



## kebabking (Dec 23, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is fantasy. McDonnell bottled it worse than Corbyn and admitted it. Keep up.



Nah, he's making a very honourable, but very obvious, attempt to save the project by throwing himself under the brexit bus.

Pretty much every LP canvasser and candidate is saying that Corbyn was a far bigger problem than brexit - brexit was a problem, but Corbyn was a bigger problem by several orders of magnitude.

By very publicly sacrificing himself on the alter of  'i fucked up on brexit policy', McDonnell is actually trying to divert attention from the big issue and put it on a smaller, less 'heart of the project,' one.

It's very honourable, it makes a change from the normal attempts by politicians to save their own wretched skins by throwing old friends under a bus when necessity calls, but it's not the truth.


----------



## Big Bertha (Dec 23, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Corbyn won all the arguments.


But lost all the elections.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 23, 2019)

Big Bertha said:


> But lost all the elections.


Apart from 2017!


----------



## kebabking (Dec 23, 2019)

Friends report that the actions of Mr Attlee in ordering the manufacture of the British Nuclear weapons programme without cabinet approval were still having a negative reaction on the doorsteps of heartland areas.

#NotCorbynsFault


----------



## Supine (Dec 23, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Apart from 2017!



I'm pretty sure he lost that one too


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> Er, can't say i saw mass movements on the streets for rail nationalisation, against UC, etc.


Is that the only measure of support for something? I mean you are critical enough of the SWP and other trots, can't you recognise that support can come in other forms?

There has been popular support for rail nationalisation for decades. That popular support is now pushing politicians, that is not to say re-nationalistion will happen but it is a live topic that politicians have to respond to. In 2015 the LP was too scared to commit to nationalisation now whoever takes over as leader is going to find it stiff going to give up (rhetorically at least) the commitment to nationalisation.

UC is, sadly, a different story.


----------



## gosub (Dec 23, 2019)

Ed Miliband to join Labour inquiry into election defeat


Hmmm. IF Corbyn had say demonstrated he was capable of eating a bacon sarnie the Sun would have called it a snub to the Jewish community and he'd have needed about as much rock as stone henge for all his manifesto "promises"


This may well to chaos and confusion


----------



## treelover (Dec 23, 2019)

Why?


----------



## treelover (Dec 23, 2019)

Lessons from campaigning in the Labour heartland seat of Barnsley - LabourList

Interesting perspective by Dan Jarvis, says he was nearly attacked on the doorstep


----------



## gosub (Dec 23, 2019)

treelover said:


> Why?


Cos its Ed Miliband. 

In real terms will just be a chance for him to"reflect" on the changes he brought in that lead to Corbyn winning the leadership


----------



## Big Bertha (Dec 23, 2019)

Supine said:


> I'm pretty sure he lost that one too



I double checked. He did!


----------



## Duncan2 (Dec 23, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Nah, he's making a very honourable, but very obvious, attempt to save the project by throwing himself under the brexit bus.
> 
> Pretty much every LP canvasser and candidate is saying that Corbyn was a far bigger problem than brexit - brexit was a problem, but Corbyn was a bigger problem by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> ...


Corbyn wasn't a problem at all until his admittedly lukewarm support for respecting the result of the referendum transmogrified into a position of neutrality.Can't imagine that many people in the Midlands think anything other than that this was a Brexit election.Nothing to agonise about- whichever party shouted loudest for Brexit was going to win with a landslide.Only hope for Labour now,particularly if they end up with a Remainer leading the Party, is that Brexit brings catastrophe.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 23, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Nah, he's making a very honourable, but very obvious, attempt to save the project by throwing himself under the brexit bus.
> 
> Pretty much every LP canvasser and candidate is saying that Corbyn was a far bigger problem than brexit - brexit was a problem, but Corbyn was a bigger problem by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> ...



Is he fuck the reason Corbyn is so widely derided is he let his party push him into a vote losing position and McDonnell who was supposed to be his right hand man led the charge. 

If Corbyn is the real problem and Brexit just a distraction, how do you explain 2017? Have you got shares in McDonnell or something or is this pure nostalgia?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 23, 2019)

10 posts later.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 23, 2019)

Spandex said:


> What lost the election was Corbyn (due to both fair and unfair criticism), his team's ineptitude and Brexit.



There was a Guardian (I think) headline saying that what lost the election was Corbyn and Brexit and now that both will be gone they'll be electable again. That does however ignore the almost blanket media monstering (no doubt of the next leader too whoever they may be) and the large amounts of funding the tories got from dodgy hedge funds, Russian oligarchs and the like. That won't change at the next election. Plus the revised boundaries/reduced number of MPs that seem to be coming up, which will also favour tories.

Eta: plus of course the outright lies they push.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2019)

two sheds said:


> There was a Guardian (I think) headline saying that what lost the election was Corbyn and Brexit and now that both will be gone they'll be electable again. That does however ignore the almost blanket media monstering (no doubt of the next leader too whoever they may be) and the large amounts of funding the tories got from dodgy hedge funds, Russian oligarchs and the like. That won't change at the next election. Plus the revised boundaries/reduced number of MPs that seem to be coming up, which will also favour tories.
> 
> Eta: plus of course the outright lies they push.


And they're likely to push for voter id. They've indicated that they wish to continue the full US Republican route of lies, gerrymandering and voter suppression.


----------



## tim (Dec 23, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Apart from 2017!


He didn't lose it, he just came second


----------



## Supine (Dec 23, 2019)

tim said:


> He didn't lose it, he just came second



It's not the winning that counts, it's the taking part.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Dec 23, 2019)

I think only Barry Gardiner could make a bigger mess of it than Corbyn so I'd vote for him. With Diane Abbot as shadow chancellor.


----------



## LDC (Dec 23, 2019)

tim said:


> He didn't lose it, he just came second



He's in the B squad, but he's _leader_ of the B squad...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 23, 2019)

Kilgore Trout said:


> I think only Barry Gardiner could make a bigger mess of it than Corbyn so I'd vote for him. With Diane Abbot as shadow chancellor.



you don’t get a vote for shadow chancellor.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Dec 23, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> you don’t get a vote for shadow chancellor.



I don't get a vote for any of them. Still I think the Gardiner/Abbot ticket would be great for the LOLs.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 23, 2019)

Kilgore Trout said:


> I don't get a vote for any of them. Still I think the Gardiner/Abbot ticket would be great for the LOLs.



Yes. That’s what politics is about. The LOLs. 

LOL...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 23, 2019)

This photo on BBC website alongside headline that Ed is going to sit on a panel which will analyse where Labour went wrong. Bit late for authentic WC hi vis shot I doot


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 23, 2019)

Absolutely mad there is a libdem on this thread giving it the big time 'losers', I mean fair fucking play really


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And they're likely to push for voter id. They've indicated that they wish to continue the full US Republican route of lies, gerrymandering and voter suppression.



only if this is designed to suppress the wc vote then it might not help them if they’re depending more on this vote than urbanite Labour. 

(though suspect it’s more aimed at immigrant communities and young people that move around a lot, the latter already being hit by recent rules on voter registration).


----------



## Riklet (Dec 23, 2019)

Gonna be Long Bailey but she's pretty weak I think. Sounds like a startled geography teacher talking about economics she read about in the Financial Times. I can see Labour choosing her though

Shame Angela Rayner is out cos she would be much better. Obvious option to take them forward.

Kier Starmer just comes across as a disingenuous creep so anyone but him, please. He isnt really that awful though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 24, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> only if this is designed to suppress the wc vote then it might not help them if they’re depending more on this vote than urbanite Labour.
> 
> (though suspect it’s more aimed at immigrant communities and young people that move around a lot, the latter already being hit by recent rules on voter registration).


It's aimed at exactly the people it's aimed at in the US. Anyone in the least bit marginal, for whatever reason. Such people are a) more likely to vote Labour/Democrat, and b) more likely to be put off from voting by presenting them with bureaucratic hurdles to clear.

wrt the w/c vote that went tory this last election, don't mistake that for a bunch of marginal people. It's mostly not. It's mostly a bunch of people who feel that they have something to lose - ie not right at the bottom.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 24, 2019)

Riklet said:


> Gonna be Long Bailey but she's pretty weak I think. Sounds like a startled geography teacher talking about economics she read about in the Financial Times. I can see Labour choosing her though


Word on the tweet is that RLB has Corbyn loyalists Milne, Halligan and Lansman (so presumably Momentum) on her team. She also has centrists crying in their quinoa, the Jerusalem Post quoting that arse Akehurst as saying if a left candidate wins they probably won't address anti-Semitism, and Guido on the prowl digging for dirt. She's going to need to shine as bright as the sun or she'll end up as Corbyn V2.0.

If her team have any sense her public absence since the election will be because they've sent her on an intensive media handling course. Que Rocky style training montage of her facing an interview in a radio studio, being barked at by a red faced Andrew Neil type and the payoff shot of her smiling sweetly while a Question Time audience roars with laughter...


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 24, 2019)

It's not inconceivable that whoever is elected leader may not fight the election. If they perform poorly, in what will be a tough year for the conservatives, opinions may change. Sticking with Corbyn didn't turn out great did it?


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 24, 2019)

Spandex said:


> Word on the tweet is that RLB has Corbyn loyalists Milne, Halligan and Lansman (so presumably Momentum) on her team. She also has centrists crying in their quinoa, the Jerusalem Post quoting that arse Akehurst as saying if a left candidate wins they probably won't address anti-Semitism, and Guido on the prowl digging for dirt. She's going to need to shine as bright as the sun or she'll end up as Corbyn V2.0.
> 
> If her team have any sense her public absence since the election will be because they've sent her on an intensive media handling course. Que Rocky style training montage of her facing an interview in a radio studio, being barked at by a red faced Andrew Neil type and the payoff shot of her smiling sweetly while a Question Time audience roars with laughter...



RLB is already pretty good in front of camera. The question is more whether she can develop a distinctive message. If she comes in with Corbyn and Milne’s vocal backing she’ll get no honeymoon, no time to bed in as she’ll be firefighting from the off. Their endorsement will be an albatross.

There was a time after the EU elections that a transition from Corbyn to RLB could have been possible, with the energy of a new leader being channeled into Labour’s election drive. That was missed and now Corbyn is toxic, but there is little sign that he acknowledges this.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 24, 2019)

Milne should be binned off. I knew alex halligan a bit over a decade ago, funnily enough given the fury over his icepick badge he was a labourite who knocked around with loads of trots. He seemed alright at time tbf. Remember he was trying to get an unemployed workers union off ground


----------



## Riklet (Dec 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> RLB is already pretty good in front of camera. The question is more whether she can develop a distinctive message. If she comes in with Corbyn and Milne’s vocal backing she’ll get no honeymoon, no time to bed in as she’ll be firefighting from the off. Their endorsement will be an albatross.



Thats good analysis I think. But I presume she will try a different angle.

This is not what i would describe as "pretty good in front of a camera" however.


----------



## treelover (Dec 24, 2019)

She doesn't have much charisma, there is also something etheral, other worldly about her, though i am sure she is a very caring and empathetic person.


----------



## Argonia (Dec 24, 2019)

Had a dream last night that I was the new Labour leader. It wasn't much of a laugh.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 24, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> RLB is already pretty good in front of camera.


She's not great, going on her appearances during the election campaign. Phrases like 'robotic', 'wooden' and 'lacking charisma' are often used about her. It could just be that she's not comfortable in front of the cameras, and that is something media training can help with. What that won't help with is having a clear vision she can easily communicate and being quick thinking and calm when under pressure. 

Johnson is quite at ease in front of a camera - he's an entitled prick who's been appearing on the telly for decades, but he falls apart under pressure, which is why he avoids difficult interviews like the plague.

How good RLB will be at presenting herself is something we'll see once the leadership race actually starts.



Mr Moose said:


> The question is more whether she can develop a distinctive message. If she comes in with Corbyn and Milne’s vocal backing she’ll get no honeymoon, no time to bed in as she’ll be firefighting from the off.


I agree with this. If she's too continuity Corbyn she'll be hammered from the off and the Labour civil war will continue fucking up the party as it has done for the past 4 years.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2019)

I agree with someone above who said strategically the LP could choose a leftist like RLB in order to continue the democratisation of the party and the shifting left of its messages and policies. And then after she's taken 3-4 years of total shit from the media they could get rid and place someone soft leftish in as leader ready for the next election. I'm not saying it would be nice, but it would be playing the electoral game.

Also if RLB takes on Corbyn's media people she's going to do as well as him. Can they really not find any talent that aren't Castro fans but with less media nous than Castro?


----------



## kebabking (Dec 24, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> I agree with someone above who said strategically the LP could choose a leftist like RLB in order to continue the democratisation of the party and the shifting left of its messages and policies. And then after she's taken 3-4 years of total shit from the media they could get rid and place someone soft leftish in as leader ready for the next election. I'm not saying it would be nice, but it would be playing the electoral game.
> 
> Also if RLB takes on Corbyn's media people she's going to do as well as him. Can they really not find any talent that aren't Castro fans but with less media nous than Castro?



Bunker mentality - it's been described by any number of _outsiders. _If you're not already in the inner circle then you're a Blairite bent on destroying the project. While Corbyn brought his own ossuary of closet-based career-ending hand grenades, anyone who takes over and keeps the Milnes and Co on board is doomed to a similar fate.

They, unfortunately, don't see it like that - they genuinely think it's everyone else's fault.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Dec 24, 2019)

My next-door neighbour told me over the garden fence that he’s just joined the Labour Party to get Yvette Cooper elected. So, I thought, I’ll put a stop to that, so I joined to vote for anybody other than her. It was then I discovered the institutional links with terrorism run pretty deep, when I was informed I had become a Provisional member. What do I do now?


----------



## 03gills (Dec 24, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Absolutely mad there is a libdem on this thread giving it the big time 'losers', I mean fair fucking play really



The limp dems spent more time campaigning against Corbyn than they did Johnson the daft fucks. This election is actually a great example of vote splitting letting the party the majority don't want get in. 

Of course that's assuming the 2.6 million votes Labour lost went to the greens, lib dems & SNP, it's entirely possible millions of people who voted Tory in 17' switched to other parties this time but Labour going anti brexit allowed the Tories to mop up the brexit vote. It'll be interesting to see the YouGov survey on where voters actually went.


----------



## Cid (Dec 24, 2019)

03gills said:


> The limp dems spent more time campaigning against Corbyn than they did Johnson the daft fucks. This election is actually a great example of vote splitting letting the party the majority don't want get in.
> 
> Of course that's assuming the 2.6 million votes Labour lost went to the greens, lib dems & SNP, it's entirely possible millions of people who voted Tory in 17' switched to other parties this time but Labour going anti brexit allowed the Tories to mop up the brexit vote. It'll be interesting to see the YouGov survey on where voters actually went.



Johnson has the highest percentage share of the vote since 1979.


----------



## 03gills (Dec 25, 2019)

Cid said:


> Johnson has the highest percentage share of the vote since 1979.



I love how everyone has completely forgotten that Theresa May only got 329,881‬ less votes than Johnson just two years ago, which was, at the time, the largest popular vote for the Conservative party since 1992. But because the Labour vote unexpectedly surged, it eliminated the Tory majority (everyone thought that what happened this time would happen two years ago i.e. Labour would increase their popular vote slightly but the brexit vote going Tory would fuck them badly) The story of this election is the collapse since 2017 in Labour support, rather than a surge in Tory support (there wasn't)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 26, 2019)

Spandex said:


> If she's too continuity Corbyn she'll be hammered from the off and the Labour civil war will continue fucking up the party as it has done for the past 4 years.



You're right. Better to pick a candidate the right wing will support/tolerate and bring about peace in the party.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 26, 2019)

I _personally _think that this left-right conflict within the party is overstated as an unending philosophical battle - the problem the PLP, and those within the wider party who don't like them, have with Corbyn and McDonnell, and Abbott and Milne et al is far more personal than that: they don't like their dodgy friends and suspect allegences, and they certainly weren't going to take an imposition of party discipline from people who'd spent the last 30 years voting against the Labour whip and decrying those who did not.

Someone like RLB is certainly going to face opposition over this or that policy - just like any party leader in parliament - but they wouldn't face the kind of visceral hatred that Corbyn and his generation of the parliamentary left aroused. Simply put, LB, Rayner, Lewis and the others weren't friends with hostile regimes or appeared on their propaganda channels, nor did they consort with or praise people who were killing British citizens whether at home or abroad.

You do sometimes have to question the emotional intelligence of those endlessly prattle on about _systems, not personalities...._


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 26, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I _personally _think that this left-right conflict within the party is overstated as an unending philosophical battle - the problem the PLP, and those within the wider party who don't like them, have with Corbyn and McDonnell, and Abbott and Milne et al is far more personal than that: they don't like their dodgy friends and suspect allegences, and they certainly weren't going to take an imposition of party discipline from people who'd spent the last 30 years voting against the Labour whip and decrying those who did not.
> 
> Someone like RLB is certainly going to face opposition over this or that policy - just like any party leader in parliament - but they wouldn't face the kind of visceral hatred that Corbyn and his generation of the parliamentary left aroused. Simply put, LB, Rayner, Lewis and the others weren't friends with hostile regimes or appeared on their propaganda channels, nor did they consort with or praise people who were killing British citizens whether at home or abroad.
> 
> You do sometimes have to question the emotional intelligence of those endlessly prattle on about _systems, not personalities...._



Honestly though this is completely wrong. Tony Benn for instance could not have been more 'moderate' friendly in background etc, he was a moderate for most of his political career, had been a minister however many times, was posh, ticked every box to be acceptable face of left but they fucking hated him intensely right up to when he died at which point he became a towering giant of the labour party again (ignore that he spent his final decade or two being a bit involved with the SWP).

The labour left are tolerated by mainstream labour types as long as they are just a background faction, it's when they threaten to take control the ire comes out. Eg tolerance of Militant prior to 80s, or for that matter Corbyn & McDonnell when just inconsequential backbenchers even though this was the period when they were openly praising the provos and all that. What was that Blair quote about Corbyn (his own MP) - you don't have to worry about Corbyn taking power, or something.

The idea labour would be perfectly happy with a leader from the same political current but with less baggage is bollocks. In the 90s the labour party had full time officials who reviewed member lists and put a T next to anybody they thought might be in favour of nationalising stuff.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 26, 2019)

I think that's pretty naive and ahistoric. The conflict between different wings of the LP is nothing new and it was, and is, always philosophical.
For a modern examples look at the comeback Miliband faced when he wanted to move to the left - the swift shutting down by the PLP establishment of rail renationalisation, the support for Harman's policy of abstention on welfare cuts.

This is not (only) about personality. It is a clear political attack on the move to the left the LP has taken since 2015.


> He told the BBC: “There are some very simple things you have to do: you have to have a credible leader, you have to be credible when it comes to the economy and security, you have to have a manifesto programme that is credible and speaks about the challenges that the country faces. Those are the things we didn’t do in the most recent general election.”



Proper Tidy said it better than me.


----------



## 03gills (Dec 26, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're right. Better to pick a candidate the right wing will support/tolerate and bring about peace in the party.



Na fuck that, if they'd got on-board the Corbyn train from the off just to see where it went rather than fighting a constant war of attrition with their own party, we'd likely already be in government with a small majority & they could've used their influence to moderate Corbyn's excesses. Instead they decided to act like a bunch of petulant tossers because they didn't get their own way, & now Boris fucking Johnson has an 80 seat majority & these fucks are *still* trying to deflect blame & attack their own party.



Brainaddict said:


> I agree with someone above who said strategically the LP could choose a leftist like RLB in order to continue the democratisation of the party and the shifting left of its messages and policies. And then after she's taken 3-4 years of total shit from the media they could get rid and place someone soft leftish in as leader ready for the next election. I'm not saying it would be nice, but it would be playing the electoral game.



You might as well keep Corbyn in place if that's the plan, nothing the media or plp do or say to him now will make any difference as he won't be Labour leader in 2024. Actually, the more i think about it the more i think that's actually a good idea.




Proper Tidy said:


> Honestly though this is completely wrong. Tony Benn for instance could not have been more 'moderate' friendly in background etc, he was a moderate for most of his political career, had been a minister however many times, was posh, ticked every box to be acceptable face of left but they fucking hated him intensely right up to when he died at which point he became a towering giant of the labour party again (ignore that he spent his final decade or two being a bit involved with the SWP).
> 
> The labour left are tolerated by mainstream labour types as long as they are just a background faction, it's when they threaten to take control the ire comes out. Eg tolerance of Militant prior to 80s, or for that matter Corbyn & McDonnell when just inconsequential backbenchers even though this was the period when they were openly praising the provos and all that. What was that Blair quote about Corbyn (his own MP) - you don't have to worry about Corbyn taking power, or something.
> 
> The idea labour would be perfectly happy with a leader from the same political current but with less baggage is bollocks. In the 90s the labour party had full time officials who reviewed member lists and put a T next to anybody they thought might be in favour of nationalising stuff.



Benn said this himself, asked why he was seen as a ''national hero'' these days he replied 'because i'm no longer a threat', basically once it became clear he was never getting near power, the media stopped treating him as the left wing bogeyman & he became cuddly Tony Benn. Look at Corbyn, not even 24 hours after the result & Sky released a puff piece highlighting his anti racism activism & portraying him in a good light.


----------



## Big Bertha (Dec 26, 2019)

03gills said:


> I love how everyone has completely forgotten that Theresa May only got 329,881‬ less votes than Johnson just two years ago, which was, at the time, the largest popular vote for the Conservative party since 1992. But because the Labour vote unexpectedly surged, it eliminated the Tory majority (everyone thought that what happened this time would happen two years ago i.e. Labour would increase their popular vote slightly but the brexit vote going Tory would fuck them badly) The story of this election is the collapse since 2017 in Labour support, rather than a surge in Tory support (there wasn't)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 26, 2019)

03gills said:


> Na fuck that, if they'd got on-board the Corbyn train from the off just to see where it went rather than fighting a constant war of attrition with their own party, we'd likely already be in government with a small majority & they could've used their influence to moderate Corbyn's excesses. Instead they decided to act like a bunch of petulant tossers because they didn't get their own way, & now Boris fucking Johnson has an 80 seat majority & these fucks are *still* trying to deflect blame & attack their own party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Loving the Steve Hillage (circa 1977) look.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 26, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Better to pick a candidate the right wing will support/tolerate and bring about peace in the party.


No, better not to, cos then some centrist cunt would be in charge.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 26, 2019)

Spandex said:


> No, better not to, cos then some centrist cunt would be in charge.



SpackleFrog was being sarcastic.


----------



## Cid (Dec 26, 2019)

03gills said:


> I love how everyone has completely forgotten that Theresa May only got 329,881‬ less votes than Johnson just two years ago, which was, at the time, the largest popular vote for the Conservative party since 1992. But because the Labour vote unexpectedly surged, it eliminated the Tory majority (everyone thought that what happened this time would happen two years ago i.e. Labour would increase their popular vote slightly but the brexit vote going Tory would fuck them badly) The story of this election is the collapse since 2017 in Labour support, rather than a surge in Tory support (there wasn't)



Not the point... You were saying it's a "great example of vote splitting letting the party the majority don't want get in". Which is not really the case a) because parties having an absolute majority is vanishingly rare (it's always the party the majority don't want), and b) because it doesn't seem to be a case of vote splitting. At least the lib dem vote split doesn't seem to have been a major influence in terms of seats. Labour didn't lose in the north because loads of people decamped to the yellows, they even held Hallam.


----------



## tim (Dec 26, 2019)

treelover said:


> Lessons from campaigning in the Labour heartland seat of Barnsley - LabourList
> 
> Interesting perspective by Dan Jarvis, says he was nearly attacked on the doorstep



He's the MP for Barnsley and also Mayor of Sheffield City Region, presumably drawing two salaries. No indication that he feels that holding the two jobs simultaneously is incompatible.


----------



## stolinski (Dec 27, 2019)

*Who will be the next Labour leader?*



Ken will be. You heard it here first


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 27, 2019)

kebabking said:


> SpackleFrog was being sarcastic.



Thanks, glad someone noticed.


----------



## treelover (Dec 27, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I _personally _think that this left-right conflict within the party is overstated as an unending philosophical battle - the problem the PLP, and those within the wider party who don't like them, have with Corbyn and McDonnell, and Abbott and Milne et al is far more personal than that: they don't like their dodgy friends and suspect allegences, and they certainly weren't going to take an imposition of party discipline from people who'd spent the last 30 years voting against the Labour whip and decrying those who did not.
> 
> Someone like RLB is certainly going to face opposition over this or that policy - just like any party leader in parliament - but they wouldn't face the kind of visceral hatred that Corbyn and his generation of the parliamentary left aroused. Simply put, LB, Rayner, Lewis and the others weren't friends with hostile regimes or appeared on their propaganda channels, nor did they consort with or praise people who were killing British citizens whether at home or abroad.
> 
> You do sometimes have to question the emotional intelligence of those endlessly prattle on about _systems, not personalities...._




Ah, but many of them came of age during the STWC era, maybe they shared platforms with some dodgy radicals?


----------



## Arbeter Fraynd (Dec 30, 2019)

Disappointing opening gambit from Long-Bailey this morning.  This 'progressive patriotism' sounds like bollocks to me.  For one thing she doesn't explain what she even thinks it is, the only example she gives is a 150 year old anti-slavery campaign, which is hardly likely to bring Bolsover charging back to Labour.  And in a time of terrifying rise of nationalism all over the world, the idea that the left flirting with patriotism is the way to combat it is really worrying.

Oh, here's her article I'm referring to - We can take the Labour party back into power. Here’s how | Rebecca Long-Bailey


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 30, 2019)

Arbeter Fraynd said:


> Disappointing opening gambit from Long-Bailey this morning.  This 'progressive patriotism' sounds like bollocks to me.  For one thing she doesn't explain what she even thinks it is, the only example she gives is a 150 year old anti-slavery campaign, which is hardly likely to bring Bolsover charging back to Labour.  And in a time of terrifying rise of nationalism all over the world, the idea that the left flirting with patriotism is the way to combat it is really worrying.
> 
> Oh, here's her article I'm referring to - We can take the Labour party back into power. Here’s how | Rebecca Long-Bailey



It's all a bit 'quiet bat people' isn't it. If they can't find someone willing to go on the attack against an open goal like Johnson's tory party then Labour really will be in the wilderness forever.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 30, 2019)

Currently, I don't give any of them a hope. Dave Miliband was their best shot back in the day and they blew it.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 30, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> Dave Miliband was their best shot back in the day and they blew it.


What in the name of fuck would've been so good about David Milliband? He was all 'what are you thinking?' every time Ed took a furtive glance to the left. He'd have gone along with Ed's capitulation that Labour were to blame for the financial crisis in 08; he'd have gone along with austerity and created 'tough fiscal rules' for Labour to follow (though he'd have mumbled something meaningless about 'corporate responsibility' too); he'd probably have gone along with the plan to bomb Assad when Cameron was up for it, embroiling the UK in the Syrian disaster and then being all 'didn't expect that' when the UK found it had helped ISIS to power in the region; he'd have kept the party firmly centrist as centrism fell out of favor across the western world; and there's no guarantee he'd have done any better than his brother in 2015. Then you'd still be here now saying they picked the wrong Milliband brother.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 30, 2019)

By comparison to all that David Miliband stuff (I fully agree with Spandex 's assessment above), Rebecca Long-Bailey doesn't seem all that bad at all!

In that Guardian article, she seems to me to be emphasising staying left and not heading centrist. I'm not sure that the 'progressive patriotism' thing is all that important to her, given the other stuff she's going on.

How good she'll be or not at attacking Johnson and his policies I've no idea so far, but she's got plenty of time to focus on that as the leadership election develops.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 30, 2019)

Spandex said:


> What in the name of fuck would've been so good about David Milliband? He was all 'what are you thinking?' every time Ed took a furtive glance to the left. He'd have gone along with Ed's capitulation that Labour were to blame for the financial crisis in 08; he'd have gone along with austerity and created 'tough fiscal rules' for Labour to follow (though he'd have mumbled something meaningless about 'corporate responsibility' too); he'd probably have gone along with the plan to bomb Assad when Cameron was up for it, embroiling the UK in the Syrian disaster and then being all 'didn't expect that' when the UK found it had helped ISIS to power in the region; he'd have kept the party firmly centrist as centrism fell out of favor across the western world; and there's no guarantee he'd have done any better than his brother in 2015. Then you'd still be here now saying they picked the wrong Milliband brother.



I didn't say he would've have been good. I just said he was their best shot at getting back into government.

IMVHO.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> By comparison to all that David Miliband stuff (I fully agree with Spandex 's assessment above), Rebecca Long-Bailey doesn't seem all that bad at all!
> 
> In that Guardian article, she seems to me to be emphasising staying left and not heading centrist.* I'm not sure that the 'progressive patriotism' thing is all that important to her, given the other stuff she's going on.*
> 
> How good she'll be or not at attacking Johnson and his policies I've no idea so far, but she's got plenty of time to focus on that as the leadership election develops.


Isn't this bold bit the problem, though? I think you're right. It sounds like something that's been come up with as a result of focus groups asking the question 'what was wrong with Jeremy Corbyn?'. But that involves the tired old (and many times failed) approach of accepting the winners' narrative on what is important, and changing to be more like them, in this case adding a splash of populist nationalism. But if that splash of populist nationalism turns out not to mean that much (and the example she gives to illustrate this patriotism in action is an example of internationalism, which is pretty odd), then you're on to a loser, no? Those who want that populist nationalism are only going to see that the other lot do it better.

Labour suffered the same problem with the ill-fated attempt by Milliband Jnr to address immigration in a way that accepted that immigration was a problem and conceded that it needed reducing. This stance never came across as heartfelt and was surely counterproductive. Surely better to be bold and make the case for the thing you actually believe in.

In this case, 'progressive patriotism' is, imho, a terrible hook from which to hang everything else. It's vague to the point of meaninglessness and is going to piss off as many people as it appeals to (remember that not everyone did dislike corbyn). Why not just choose 'Green New Deal' as the hook? Be bold and build a whole case for social justice, economic development and sustainability from that. She's halfway towards that but comes across as afraid to take the full step to it.

Said 'Green New Deal' would also provide a specific principled point of reference from which to attack Johnson over the coming years. 'progressive patriotism' provides nothing.

Prediction: if RLB wins, this Progressive Patriotism schtick will last about as long as David Cameron's Big Society lasted (a similar piece of nonsense from the Tory side).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2019)

Sounds like someone's been listening to Billy Bragg too much, he wrote a startlingly shit book titled the progressive patriot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 30, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> How good she'll be or not at attacking Johnson and his policies I've no idea so far, but she's got plenty of time to focus on that as the leadership election develops.



She may have time. The rest of us do not. Now is not the time for the opposition to disappear into their own navels for months or years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> She may have time. The rest of us do not. Now is not the time for the opposition to disappear into their own navels for months or years.


Explaining to us (and each other) precisely what 'progressive patriotism' means, for instance.


----------



## andysays (Dec 30, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Explaining to us (and each other) precisely what 'progressive patriotism' means, for instance.



Yeah, the worst thing about the phrase is that it's utterly unclear what it's intended to mean.

I don't think it's is supposed to be another way of saying 'populist nationalism', but who knows.

If we must have slogans or catch phrases, please let it be clear what they mean. "For the many, not the few" at least has/had that in its favour. Unless they can come up with something clearly better, maybe they should stick with that for the time being.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2019)

andysays said:


> Yeah, the worst thing about the phrase is that it's utterly unclear what it's intended to mean.
> 
> I don't think it's is supposed to be another way of saying 'populist nationalism', but who knows.
> 
> If we must have slogans or catch phrases, please let it be clear what they mean. "For the many, not the few" at least has/had that in its favour. Unless they can come up with something clearly better, maybe they should stick with that for the time being.


Yep. I wonder if the focus groups didn't like that either. I would hope not. It has simplicity and clarity and is something to get behind without reservation regardless of any differences over details of policy or wider political philosophy. 'Progressive Patriotism' is none of those things. I don't think it's necessarily supposed to be another way of saying 'populist nationalism', but I do think it is a response to the success of populist nationalism in the last election. It is at the very least a nod to it, or at least it appears to be to the extent that we can say that it's anything at all. I don't really know what it means, and I strongly suspect that neither does RLB, given the way she chose to illustrate it - progressive, sure, but where's the patriotism in the cotton import stand (I like the choice of example from history, but am mystified by its connection to PP)? I'd bet she didn't come up with the idea of using PP herself, and that shows already.

Hence, I fear, the comparison with 'Big Society'. The more Cameron talked about that, the more it became apparent that it didn't mean anything at all, until one day he just stopped talking about it and never mentioned it again. See also Major 'Back to Basics'.


----------



## maomao (Dec 30, 2019)

It sounds like it's meant to mean 'nationalism but without the racism'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2019)

maomao said:


> It sounds like it's meant to mean 'nationalism but without the racism'.


Yes. Hence the choice of an anti-slavery story to go with it, I guess. Still don't see wtf that story has to do with patriotism, though.

To me, given when this is being said, it also smacks of 'I'm a patriot, not like that Jeremy Corbyn'. It's an implied slight against Corbyn.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 30, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Explaining to us (and each other) precisely what 'progressive patriotism' means, for instance.



It means 'we're trying to project a watered down version of the ideology that defeated us'. Ed Miliband 2.0 basically.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 30, 2019)

maomao said:


> It sounds like it's meant to mean 'nationalism but without the racism'.



Which, famously, doesn't exist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> It means 'we're trying to project a watered down version of the ideology that defeated us'. Ed Miliband 2.0 basically.


And one of the reasons that doesn't work. It's so obviously fucking _timid_.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 30, 2019)

"until the pips squeak" might do it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2019)

two sheds said:


> "until the pips squeak" might do it


But, as shown, pure rhetoric.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 30, 2019)

maomao said:


> It sounds like it's meant to mean 'nationalism but without the racism'.


Yep, and a wholly pathetic opening gambit, particualrly given that her people have obviously kept her insulated from any media contact in order to keep her powder dry.
Sounds to me like a pretty desperate and clumsy attempt to imagine what it is that 'our Northern people' want.
FFS


----------



## Part-timah (Dec 30, 2019)

Its the Danish model of National Socialism that’s herded the bigoted rural wildebeests over there.

National socialism. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Its the Danish model of National Socialism that’s herded the bigoted rural wildebeests over there.
> 
> National socialism. What could possibly go wrong?


Don't be silly


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2019)

Part-timah said:


> Its the Danish model of National Socialism that’s herded the bigoted rural wildebeests over there.
> 
> National socialism. What could possibly go wrong?


full timah soon


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 31, 2019)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> How good she'll be or not at attacking Johnson and his policies I've no idea so far, but she's got plenty of time to focus on that as the leadership election develops.





SpookyFrank said:


> She may have time. *The rest of us do not.* Now is not the time for the opposition to disappear into their own navels for *months or years*.



She's got to sort it out ahead of March 2020 , agreed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 31, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> She's got to sort it out ahead of March 2020 , agreed


No. Brexit (phase 1) happens end of January. All this need to be addressed now. Johnson needs to be attacked from now.

Everything that is wrong with this withdrawal agreement needs to be detailed as it happens. Any future leader needs to be at the centre of that. It is crucial that the future fuck ups from brexit fallout must not be in any way attributable to Labour, the party not in power, not making the decisions.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 31, 2019)

I know my posts look like I'm over-defending RLB  , but I do actually agree with most of your points. 

The "March 2020" reference in my post above was only about the time the Labour Party election actually happens. Of course ehe's got to attack the Tories well ahead of that .....


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard Burgon has put himself forward for deputy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 31, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> By comparison to all that David Miliband stuff (I fully agree with Spandex 's assessment above), Rebecca Long-Bailey doesn't seem all that bad at all!
> 
> In that Guardian article, she seems to me to be emphasising staying left and not heading centrist. I'm not sure that the 'progressive patriotism' thing is all that important to her, given the other stuff she's going on.
> 
> How good she'll be or not at attacking Johnson and his policies I've no idea so far, but she's got plenty of time to focus on that as the leadership election develops.



She will need to define it further or bin it. Boris was popular with many because, however much of a tosser he is, he puts on a pro-Britain optimistic face. He is Britain _First_, make Britain _‘Great’_ again. Curmudgeonly Corbyn was in many minds (in the shallow discourse of what the papers say/newspaper review politics) the antithesis of this, always running stuff down, probably batting for another team, not a ‘winner’ etc.

While this is in nine parts deception (Boris wouldn’t piss on most people were they on fire) ‘Britain _First_’ is an easy sell for Tories and a rule of thumb for certain policy. What would Boris do about Foreign Aid? He will redirect some of it to British people.

RLB is trying something much harder, to sell optimistic pro-Britain (and probably she will have to present herself as pretty pro _UK PLC_) and some sort of ‘internationalism’. This is also her first volley into distinguishing herself from the Corbyn legacy. While its policies are mostly fine (albeit when pitched more cautiously at the electorate) politically it is toxic.

I don’t get the impression RLB is particularly left, not much to the left of Starmer if at all (both legal professionals) and she will make a pitch across the party rather than a solely left one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 31, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> She will need to define it further or bin it. Boris was popular with many because, however much of a tosser he is, he puts on a pro-Britain optimistic face. He is Britain _First_, make Britain _‘Great’_ again. Curmudgeonly Corbyn was in many minds (in the shallow discourse of what the papers say/newspaper review politics) the antithesis of this, always running stuff down, probably batting for another team, not a ‘winner’ etc.
> 
> While this is in nine parts deception (Boris wouldn’t piss on most people were they on fire) ‘Britain _First_’ is an easy sell for Tories and a rule of thumb for certain policy. What would Boris do about Foreign Aid? He will redirect some of it to British people.
> 
> ...



There isn't going  to be another election any time soon, probably for either the full term or something very close to it, so there isn't actually any pressing need for a new leader to distance themselves from Corbyn from the off. I agree with your analysis re the perception of Corbyn, but a new leader can build a new perception of themselves over months and years (in the case of RLB, from a very low base as most people currently know nothing about her). Just by not being Corbyn, they can do that.

There's not necessarily a need to brand yourself a _progressive_ _patriot_ or any other gimmicky nonsense. It also risks backfiring and becoming a bit 'Thick of It', where the labour leader decides to endorse a tory policy only to find the tories have ditched it. Johnson's particular brand of xenophobic patriotism could easily become very toxic as brexit plays out. Not necessarily wise to try to hitch yourself to any of it at this particular moment.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 1, 2020)

The Labour party grassroots members who joined/ rejoined the Labour party when Corbyn became leader I know are still in shock. So I haven't heard anyone deciding who they want as leader. Its been demoralising. I feel sorry for them. Straight after defeat they hear Alan Johnson calling them to be kicked out of the party. One told me she has been avoiding reading mainstream media since the defeat. These are decent people and its been really upsetting for them. Some are young and want an alternative to the so called "centre" politics they grew up with.

I'm in Lambeth / London.

My New Labour Councll Leader has already gone for Keir Starmer on his Twitter.

As my local Council is run by the Progress wing of the party looks like Keir for them. Previously it had been Yvette Cooper then Owen Smith. Definitely not Corbyn.

The shock of the new membership was a bit much for them to handle. The Progress wing of the party have a strong hold on the local party apparatus. I think would be happy if all the people. who recently joined or rejoined just left.

Except in Streatham (Chuka old seat) where left has taken key posts off New Labour and Corbyn supporting candidate got selected for MP.

But on local Council level Progress run the party.

Inner London was rock solid Labour.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2020)

Polling (all caveats aside) suggests Starmer has strong lead


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2020)

Could unite the party around Euro-Corbynism?


----------



## toblerone3 (Jan 1, 2020)

Boris Johnson's behaviour and tone over the next month could have a strong influence over who the next Labour leader is.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 1, 2020)

Sir Keir Starmer seems to be the clear favourite Poll of Labour members suggests Keir Starmer is first choice

Seems like a bad choice to me though, clearly middle class and he's a remainer. He also backed Owen Smith for the leadership.

Then again, the electorate seems to like voting for posh cunts.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 1, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> Boris Johnson's behaviour and tone over the next month could have a strong influence over who the next Labour leader is.


Why is that? Could you please explain?


----------



## Marty1 (Jan 2, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Sir Keir Starmer seems to be the clear favourite Poll of Labour members suggests Keir Starmer is first choice
> 
> Seems like a bad choice to me though, clearly middle class and he's a remainer. He also backed Owen Smith for the leadership.



Interesting/delusional article.

Labour leader: The Jeremy Corbyn replacement Boris Johnson will be most TERRIFIED of



> The Remainer is seen as the centrist candidate and is hotly tipped as both a good communicator with the British public and experienced negotiator, *having been central to Labour’s talks with the EU over an alternative Brexit deal during 2019*.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> *delusional article*.
> 
> Labour leader: The Jeremy Corbyn replacement Boris Johnson will be most TERRIFIED of




By definition -- it's the Daily Express FFS


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 2, 2020)

I can't imagine that BoZo has the slightest fear of whoever gets the job.
He has always had massive confidence in his own superiority and no amount of actual setbacks ever seem to dent it.
Personally I favour Jess Phillips because she wouldn't hesitate to call him a prat to his face.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 2, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Polling (all caveats aside) suggests Starmer has strong lead





> .It is also important to remember that YouGov just polled Labour party members. In the leadership campaign two other categories of people get to vote: people affiliated to Labour through membership of a trade union or a socialist society, and people who pay a one-off fee to get a vote as a registered supporter. Although these two groups are broadly similar in outlook to Labour members, they don’t vote in exactly the same way. In 2015 and in 2016 the registered supporters were proportionately significantly more pro-Corbyn than members and affiliates.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 2, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> I can't imagine that BoZo has the slightest fear of whoever gets the job.
> He has always had massive confidence in his own superiority and no amount of actual setbacks ever seem to dent it.
> Personally I favour Jess Phillips because she wouldn't hesitate to call him a prat to his face.


Isn't Jess Philips friends with Rees Mogg? I know they've done quite a few TV segments together and they seem to be really pally with each other.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 2, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Sir Keir Starmer seems to be the clear favourite Poll of Labour members suggests Keir Starmer is first choice
> 
> Seems like a bad choice to me though, clearly middle class and he's a remainer.



Starmer in fact has a far more working class background than some we could mention, like Jess Phillips.

His position on Brexit is far far more problematic


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 2, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Starmer in fact has a far more working class background than some we could mention, like Jess Phillips.
> 
> His position on Brexit is far far more problematic


Why? The Labour Party has no more input into the kind of Brexit we get than u75 
Whatever Brexit turns out to be it will done and dusted before there is a Labour PM in no 10


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 2, 2020)

Find it difficult to believe Starmer really the front runner but if true it's a sad reflection of how little impact the last four years has had on membership let alone general public and on how weak left/successor options are. Not arsed what he says before hand, if anybody expects anything that isn't basically somewhere between miliband and blair from posh lad then they are deluded


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2020)

fwiw, Starmer isn't a public school boy as some have suggested. He went to a direct-grant grammar school, which went private later when grammar schools were abolished.

He is of course a centrist and an ultra-establishment figure - he was Blair's director of public prosecutions after all, hence the 'Sir'.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 2, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Find it difficult to believe Starmer really the front runner but if true it's a sad reflection of how little impact the last four years has had on membership let alone general public and on how weak left/successor options are. Not arsed what he says before hand, if anybody expects anything that isn't basically somewhere between miliband and blair from posh lad then they are deluded


It'll just confirm Labour as a London based party again


----------



## YouSir (Jan 2, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> It'll just confirm Labour as a London based party again



Westminster based. Wish people would stop conflating London as a whole with a handful of middle class media workers and politicians.


----------



## agricola (Jan 2, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Find it difficult to believe Starmer really the front runner but if true it's a sad reflection of how little impact the last four years has had on membership let alone general public and on how weak left/successor options are. Not arsed what he says before hand, if anybody expects anything that isn't basically somewhere between miliband and blair from posh lad then they are deluded



Better him than most of the other candidates, TBH.  At least he hung around and tried to make it work, rather than going into that odd "this is nothing to do with me" exile that so many of the others did.


----------



## Part-timah (Jan 2, 2020)

The mass media are pushing hard for Starmer. He’ll be awful. I don’t know much about Lavery but he looks up for a scrap. The Scum has started slating him so he must have something going for him.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 2, 2020)

agricola said:


> Better him than most of the other candidates, TBH.  At least he hung around and tried to make it work, rather than going into that odd "this is nothing to do with me" exile that so many of the others did.


Is this the same Starmer that 'hung around and tried to make it work ' by resigning  from the Shadow Cabinet?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw, Starmer isn't a public school boy as some have suggested. He went to a direct-grant grammar school, which went private later when grammar schools were abolished.
> 
> He is of course a centrist and an ultra-establishment figure - he was Blair's director of public prosecutions after all, hence the 'Sir'.


It went private when he was there, not after, and he attended for another 5 years after that. It's entirely accurate to say that he's  private educated.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 2, 2020)

YouSir said:


> Westminster based. Wish people would stop conflating London as a whole with a handful of middle class media workers and politicians.


You'll have to do a tour of the North to get this across


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 2, 2020)

agricola said:


> Better him than most of the other candidates, TBH.  At least he hung around and tried to make it work, rather than going into that odd "this is nothing to do with me" exile that so many of the others did.



He wasn't trying to make it work. He was trying to sabotage Corbyn and position himself to take over afterwards. I doubt even Johnson himself was as happy with the election result as Starmer was.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 2, 2020)

Corbyn managed to sabotage himself without needing anybody else's help TBF.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> He wasn't trying to make it work. He was trying to sabotage Corbyn and position himself to take over afterwards. *I doubt even Johnson himself was as happy with the election result as Starmer was*.



Not saying you're wrong overall, but I sort of doubt (?) that last (bolded) bit. If Starmer is as crazily-Remain as generally thought, he's hardly going to be delighted about "Brexit being done" with zero real chance of it being frustrated.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 2, 2020)

YouSir said:


> Westminster based. Wish people would stop conflating London as a whole with a handful of middle class media workers and politicians.



Remind us which constituencies labour lost and which they retained?


----------



## YouSir (Jan 2, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Remind us which constituencies labour lost and which they retained?



They held London, Liverpool, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry etc. Basically they held cities. Which gets distilled down to them being a 'London party' (or a metropolitan, liberal or 'Islington' one) by people who like to dismiss the working class populations of those cities because it gets in the way of their 'Hipsters and middle class students are all Labour have' narrative. In London especially it allows both the media/political class and their critics to keep indulging their wank fantasies of politics beginning and ending in Westminster because everyone else in the city is really like _them_. Except for the millions of precarious and low waged workers they walk past every day, who don't exist.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 2, 2020)

YouSir said:


> They held London, Liverpool, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry etc. Basically they held cities. Which gets distilled down to them being a 'London party' (or a metropolitan, liberal or 'Islington' one) by people who like to dismiss the working class populations of those cities because it gets in the way of their 'Hipsters and middle class students are all Labour have' narrative. In London especially it allows both the media/political class and their critics to keep indulging their wank fantasies of politics beginning and ending in Westminster because everyone else in the city is really like _them_. Except for the millions of precarious and low waged workers they walk past every day, who don't exist.



And that's not a defence of Labour, it's annoyance at the lazy bullshit of dismissing urban voters as irrelevant or solely middle class city workers through a tired line of cliches. 'They drink coffee' being the perennial and bizarre favourite, as if any cunt left living hasn't seen a Costa.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 2, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Why? The Labour Party has no more input into the kind of Brexit we get than u75
> Whatever Brexit turns out to be it will done and dusted before there is a Labour PM in no 10



So we think voters and Tory politicos in new blue Northern / Mids constits are going to just forget Starmers' militant anti Brexit / pro 2nd Ref past come the time ( with the Brexit process still v much in motion ) ?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 2, 2020)

cantsin said:


> So we think voters and Tory politicos in new blue Northern / Mids constits are going to just forget Starmers' militant anti Brexit / pro 2nd Ref past come the time ( with the Brexit process still v much in motion ) ?



Depends on how he went about it - if he embraces brexit reality and offers some form of lexity/hopeful brexit, then he'll be happily forgiven for being a remainer, if however he just carps on about how awful it all is, and allows a impression to develop that Labour would not-so-secretly like to brejoin, then Labour will be toast. (Again).

Labour are going to have to put a shift in to re-establish some form of trust on the brexit/referendum issue, but it could be done - but only by putting the work in and doing it relentlessly for the next 5 years, not a couple of Guardian articles, a manifesto 4 weeks before the election, and 4 years of Labour people tweeting #FBPE...


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 2, 2020)

Part-timah said:


> The mass media are pushing hard for Starmer. He’ll be awful. I don’t know much about Lavery but he looks up for a scrap. The Scum has started slating him so he must have something going for him.



I think Lavery may have a conviction for football hooliganism?


----------



## cantsin (Jan 2, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Depends on how he went about it - if he embraces brexit reality and offers some form of lexity/hopeful brexit, then he'll be happily forgiven for being a remainer, if however he just carps on about how awful it all is, and allows a impression to develop that Labour would not-so-secretly like to brejoin, then Labour will be toast. (Again).
> 
> *Labour are going to have to put a shift in to re-establish some form of trust on the brexit/referendum issue*, but it could be done - but only by putting the work in and doing it relentlessly for the next 5 years, not a couple of Guardian articles, a manifesto 4 weeks before the election, and 4 years of Labour people tweeting #FBPE...



bit galling for those of us who supported Leave, got support for relevant motions passed @ CLPs to go fwd to conference, who defended Corbyn vs the Remaniacs for 3 yrs, and bitterly opposed the shift toward any kind of acceptance of / support for 2nd ref


----------



## kebabking (Jan 2, 2020)

cantsin said:


> bit galling for those of us who supported Leave, got support for relevant motions passed @ CLPs to go fwd to conference, who defended Corbyn vs the Remaniacs for 3 yrs, and bitterly opposed the shift toward any kind of acceptance of / support for 2nd ref



Sorry, but that effort simply wasn't visible to the important people in this affair - the electorate - and obviously it wasn't very effective either. That's not being sarky, it's just what I saw in the media, on twitter and heard from party members - they were almost exclusively pushing a 2nd ref agenda. Labour Leavers - and respect-the-referendum-result-ers - effectively disappeared after the 2017 GE.

In practical terms that means a leader who respects the referendum result, doesn't carp on about how awful brexit (in principle) is, clearing out the Shadow Cabinet of people like Thornberry, and selecting Parliamentary Candidates who will spend the four years prior to the next election in their local papers, on twitter, on Facebook, and knocking doors saying what a success Labour will make of brexit.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 2, 2020)

cantsin said:


> So we think voters and Tory politicos in new blue Northern / Mids constits are going to just forget Starmers' militant anti Brexit / pro 2nd Ref past come the time ( with the Brexit process still v much in motion ) ?


Labour (regardless of who leads them) have already lost the next election, they have been beaten not by policies or poor leadership or even Brexit but simple maths. In order to win in 2024 they need to take 124 seats for a majority of 1, 150+ for a decent majority. They can't take seats off the SNP since Scottish Labour is dead in all but name. They can't take them of the LD's because they don't have any to take so that means off the Tories.
No matter how badly BoZo screws Brexit (and he will) it won't be bad enough to cost him a full half of his seats, the best that Labour can hope for is rebuild the so called "Red Wall" and reduce the Tory majority to a realistic one. I think they can do that no matter who leads them since by then it will have dawned on the suckers who voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done" to realise that they have been sold snake oil and their lives will not have been improved either by Brexit or by a Tory Govt.
To be fair I think Starmer will probably appeal more to the new Blue voters than Long-Bailey but neither of them can win a GE.
There is not going to be a Labour govt this side of 2030 and Brexit will be (mostly) settled by then. The next Labour PM is probably not even an MP at the moment.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 2, 2020)

There's no way whoever becomes Labour leader will be able to remove all the pro-EUers from the Shadow Cabinet. There's simply too many of them with too much political capital.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 2, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> There's no way whoever becomes Labour leader will be able to remove all the pro-EUers from the Shadow Cabinet. There's simply too many of them with too much political capital.


It wouldn't be the Labour party you want, but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex. For what it's worth, so mebbe not a lot. Who knows, up north, how many Labour remainers didn't bother turning out? So the Tories wouldn't be in power now. It might not be what you want, but it might not have been as bad as what we'll all get.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 2, 2020)

bluescreen said:


> It wouldn't be the Labour party you want, but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex. For what it's worth, so mebbe not a lot. Who knows, up north, how many Labour remainers didn't bother turning out? So the Tories wouldn't be in power now. It might not be what you want, but it might not have been as bad as what we'll all get.


Sorry but this is pure putting own views ahead of all known facts. The only labour party that had any hope of stopping a tory majority was one that was, or was perceived to be, committed to leaving. There is no other rational reading of the results, of the seats lost and held.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 2, 2020)

bluescreen said:


> but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex.



would it really?

the lib dems were pretty much campaigning on 'stop brexit' (in the south east at least - no idea if they were putting a different message out in the north) and it didn't do them a great deal of good.  i live in a remain voting* but fairly safe tory constituency with euro-septic incumbent MP, the lib dems put up an ex tory (former MP for neighbouring seat who either quit or got turfed out of the tories) up and a huge amount of effort / spending on leafleting, and they managed to overtake labour in to second place...

(* - although borough and consitutency have slightly different boundaries, suspect the bits that form part of neighbouring constituency were more remainy)

and would a pro-EU labour party have lost even more seats in the north / midlands?

the vast majority of seats labour lost this time round were in leave voting seats.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 2, 2020)

YouSir said:


> They held London, Liverpool, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry etc. Basically they held cities. Which gets distilled down to them being a 'London party' (or a metropolitan, liberal or 'Islington' one) by people who like to dismiss the working class populations of those cities because it gets in the way of their 'Hipsters and middle class students are all Labour have' narrative. In London especially it allows both the media/political class and their critics to keep indulging their wank fantasies of politics beginning and ending in Westminster because everyone else in the city is really like _them_. Except for the millions of precarious and low waged workers they walk past every day, who don't exist.



right, so labour is still holding seats in certain working class communities but not others. Their voters in london (and other cities) who have stuck with them aren’t all media/oxbridge wankers are they? 

If labour are holding onto seats in some areas and others, perhaps their manifesto/image/whatever was more appealing to working class communities than others?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 2, 2020)

YouSir said:


> And that's not a defence of Labour, it's annoyance at the lazy bullshit of dismissing urban voters as irrelevant or solely middle class city workers through a tired line of cliches. 'They drink coffee' being the perennial and bizarre favourite, as if any cunt left living hasn't seen a Costa.



yeah that’s fair enough. Not sure anyone who isn’t a twat would disagree with you on that though


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 2, 2020)

I’m starting to think that the LP is more stress than it’s worth tbh


----------



## gosub (Jan 2, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> There's no way whoever becomes Labour leader will be able to remove all the pro-EUers from the Shadow Cabinet. There's simply too many of them with too much political capital.



That, this time round isn't a problem. With Boris having a working majority, makes sense to be the voice of "you don't wanna do that".  The previous dynamic of a PM who actually didn't want to do Brexit and a Leader of the Opposite that kind of did in a parliament with no clear majority was a recipe for a fuck up


----------



## 03gills (Jan 2, 2020)

I voted leave but at this point i just want it to be done with either way, but more & more I'm convinced Labour had no fucking business pandering to the FBPE ultras with a second referendum. Some of the worst cunts on twitter dwell within that hashtag, & most of them refuse to accept remain lost Labour the election & would rather throw the policies &/or Corbyn under the bus (and most of them voted Lib Dem anyway) If Starmer is elected leader then Labour will have learned fuck all from their defeat.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2020)

03gills said:


> I voted leave but at this point i just want it to be done with either way, but more & more I'm convinced Labour had no fucking business pandering to the FBPE ultras with a second referendum. Some of the worst cunts on twitter dwell within that hashtag, & most of them refuse to accept remain lost Labour the election & would rather throw the policies &/or Corbyn under the bus (and most of them voted Lib Dem anyway) *If Starmer is elected leader then Labour will have learned fuck all from their defeat*.



Agree with most of these things (and I was a remainer!) but Starmer's options re Brexit will be much more limited than that bolded last point implies.

I'm no Starmer supporter , but there won't be another GE for five years, and the thing any LP leader will most want is :

*a.* For the next GE to be nothing about Brexit
and
*b.* Boris Johnson to have totally fucked both Brexit and (more importantly) most other policy

Whoever the next Labour leader is, and whoever their (non Seamus Milne!!  ) team are, the very best thing they can do is to get _half-way competent_ in opposition/communication.
And straight a-fucking-way!

More on this tomorrow, for what little my thoughts are worth


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 2, 2020)

This is the thing I struggle with: 





> *the thing any LP leader will most want is* :
> 
> *(a.* For the next GE to be nothing about Brexit


[not arguing about that] 





> and
> *b.* *Boris Johnson to have totally fucked both Brexit and (more importantly) most other policy*


because maybe I'm too literal and simplistic but *b.* sounds appalling, so why should _anyone_ want it unless they want to be some kind of political Mary Sue just to make it all better?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 3, 2020)

bluescreen said:


> It wouldn't be the Labour party you want, but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex. For what it's worth, so mebbe not a lot. Who knows, up north, how many Labour remainers didn't bother turning out? So the Tories wouldn't be in power now. It might not be what you want, but it might not have been as bad as what we'll all get.


What the PTs said, total wishful thinking.
This election was always going to be decided in Lab-Tory marginals, the vast majority of which had majorities for the Leave vote in 2016. The idea that by going full remain Lab could have taken safe Tory seats with remain majorities is our fantasy that is exactly the strategy the LDs tried and it failed miserably.


gosub said:


> That, this time round isn't a problem. With Boris having a working majority, makes sense to be the voice of "you don't wanna do that".  The previous dynamic of a PM who actually didn't want to do Brexit and a Leader of the Opposite that kind of did in a parliament with no clear majority was a recipe for a fuck up


I'm not arguing whether it would be a "problem" or not, I'm saying that the "clearing out the Shadow Cabinet of people like Thornberry" proposed by kebabking is not going to happen. In 2015 Corbyn won in the first round (something I'm skeptical will be achieved by the winner this time) and still had to accept a Shadow Cabinet containing people very far from his politics.

Thornberry has enough political capital that I cannot see how the next Labour leader could remove her from the Shadow Cabinet even if they had the will, which I don't think most of the candidates do.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 3, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> *Labour (regardless of who leads them) have already lost the next election, they have been beaten not by policies or poor leadership or even Brexit but simple maths*. In order to win in 2024 they need to take 124 seats for a majority of 1, 150+ for a decent majority. They can't take seats off the SNP since Scottish Labour is dead in all but name. They can't take them of the LD's because they don't have any to take so that means off the Tories.
> No matter how badly BoZo screws Brexit (and he will) it won't be bad enough to cost him a full half of his seats, the best that Labour can hope for is rebuild the so called "Red Wall" and reduce the Tory majority to a realistic one. I think they can do that no matter who leads them since by then it will have dawned on the suckers who voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done" to realise that they have been sold snake oil and their lives will not have been improved either by Brexit or by a Tory Govt.
> To be fair I think Starmer will probably appeal more to the new Blue voters than Long-Bailey but neither of them can win a GE.
> There is not going to be a Labour govt this side of 2030 and Brexit will be (mostly) settled by then. The next Labour PM is probably not even an MP at the moment.



all v true .... except it's day 3 of  2020, and Lenin's 'sometimes nothing happens in a decade, other times decades happen in a week' maxim is starting to look slow paced, as Australia burns, Trump's havingg a decent go at getting a pre election war going, and Dom Cummings is recruiting an army of incel militants to staff whitehall... your v rational line of argument belongs in the last decade, or possibly the one before that...wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris doesn't see out this term, let alone another one.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 3, 2020)

No one blames the Tories for bushfires on the other side of the world and even fewer will care if Civil Service recruitment rules are changed.
The unfolding events in the Middle East do look like becoming BoZo's first foreign crisis but unless he gets us involved in another war then the public doesn't care about foreign wars. 
If he does it could have some impact but Blair getting us involved in Iraq didn't hurt him much in 2005.
But I don't think he will, he is astute enough to learn from Blair's mistake and cares more about his own position than impressing Trump


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 3, 2020)

So Nandy and Phillips both declared now.

Slim pickings really isn't it


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 3, 2020)

cantsin said:


> bit galling for those of us who supported Leave, got support for relevant motions passed @ CLPs to go fwd to conference, who defended Corbyn vs the Remaniacs for 3 yrs, and bitterly opposed the shift toward any kind of acceptance of / support for 2nd ref


It’s ok, brexit is happening now.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 3, 2020)

bluescreen said:


> This is the thing I struggle with :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps with that post of mine above, I was being ultra-pessimistic enough to think that the only way Johnson can lose at the next GE is to be a publicly spectacular failure with everything?

Entirely possible where Boris Johnson is concerned .....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 3, 2020)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Whoever the next Labour leader is, and whoever their (non Seamus Milne!!  ) team are, the very best thing they can do is to get _half-way competent_ in opposition/communication.
> And straight a-fucking-way!



The above was my main real point though.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 3, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Labour (regardless of who leads them) have already lost the next election, they have been beaten not by policies or poor leadership or even Brexit but simple maths. In order to win in 2024 they need to take 124 seats for a majority of 1, 150+ for a decent majority. They can't take seats off the SNP since Scottish Labour is dead in all but name. They can't take them of the LD's because they don't have any to take so that means off the Tories.
> No matter how badly BoZo screws Brexit (and he will) it won't be bad enough to cost him a full half of his seats, the best that Labour can hope for is rebuild the so called "Red Wall" and reduce the Tory majority to a realistic one. I think they can do that no matter who leads them since by then it will have dawned on the suckers who voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done" to realise that they have been sold snake oil and their lives will not have been improved either by Brexit or by a Tory Govt.
> To be fair I think Starmer will probably appeal more to the new Blue voters than Long-Bailey but neither of them can win a GE.
> There is not going to be a Labour govt this side of 2030 and Brexit will be (mostly) settled by then. The next Labour PM is probably not even an MP at the moment.



That is a tad pessimistic - I think there could be a Lab PM, if not a Lab govt before then - if they do a deal with the SNP then I assume they only have to do slightly better than 2017 to get into hung parliament territory.  I expect LibDems will move to the left so that should be a few more seats... 

I guess this is heading towards 'progressive alliance' type territory - with a deal being based on a reformed voting system and ind2...   A reformed voting system has to be in Labour's interests if Scotland leaves the Union - otherwise we could be heading to 'permanent' Tory govt..


----------



## Marty1 (Jan 3, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> right, so labour is still holding seats in certain working class communities but not others. Their voters in london (and other cities) who have stuck with them aren’t all media/oxbridge wankers are they?
> 
> If labour are holding onto seats in some areas and others, perhaps their manifesto/image/whatever was more appealing to working class communities than others?



The working class areas Labour did hold onto still saw significant drops in vote share.

But Labour have generally alienated themselves from their core support as they are now largely regarded as a London based party for liberal elites.

This says it all really:


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2020)

It says nothing of course

edit: why did i even


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> The working class areas Labour did hold onto still saw significant drops in vote share.
> 
> But Labour have generally alienated themselves from their core support as they are now largely regarded as a London based party for liberal elites.
> 
> ...


Where did you get this map from. Link?


----------



## Marty1 (Jan 4, 2020)

Rutita1 said:


> Where did you get this map from. Link?



Screen grab from a BBC video after the election if memory serves me correctly.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 4, 2020)

While it would still show a heavy tory bias, only a map based on population density has any relevance. Obviously.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 4, 2020)

Have you got a map that corrects for population densities?

Eta what PT said.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2020)

e2a: apols....should have given source & this quote...must have been the shock of the new!



> In these cartograms, a series of different cartographic techniques is used to show how the political landscape in the UK is shaped and has changed since the last election in 2017, not only by physical space, but also by political dimensions as well as from a people’s perspective. The conventional (land area) map is complemented by a hexagon cartogram in which each parliamentary constituency is represented by a hexagon (some minor changes in constituencies in recent years are reflected in split and merged hexagons). There is also then a gridded population cartogram in which each area is resized according to the number of people living there


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2020)

Nandy formally announces she is standing.

On the face of it, looks like the right/blue faction can offer a more credible opening gambit than _progressive patriotism...

_


> Setting out her pitch for the top job in an article for the Guardian, she took a dig at her rival Keir Starmer’s promise not to “oversteer” in the wake of last month’s general election defeat. “Now is not the time to steady the ship or try not to oversteer,” she wrote. “What is needed are the hard yards of winning the argument inch by inch in town halls, *workplaces* and pubs. This is where we fight to regain people’s trust. The next Labour leader will have to be up for a scrap – willing to run to the places we are loathed, take the anger on the chin, make and win the argument.”


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 4, 2020)

I like what Nandy says there tbh.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 4, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I like what Nandy says there tbh.



Absolutely. But the problem is what argument does she want to assault people’s ears with?

To continue her nautical metaphor, if she doesn’t wish to ‘steady the ship’ or not ‘oversteer’ we have to expect hard to starboard.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Nandy formally announces she is standing.
> 
> On the face of it, looks like the right/blue faction can offer a more credible opening gambit than _progressive patriotism..._


Sorry am I reading this wrong or are you implying that Nandy is part of the Labour right and/or Blue Labour? 

If so I don't think that's true at all, she's from the soft left.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry am I reading this wrong or are you implying that Nandy is part of the Labour right and/or Blue Labour?
> 
> If so I don't think that's true at all, she's from the soft left.


Happy to stand corrected; not something I'm very clued up on tbh.
I suppose I was (maybe erroneously) basing my assumptions on her 2016 resignation, backing of Owen Smith and engagement with Blue Labour conferences (Glasman & Rowenna Davis etc.)
Were Nandy to gain traction and contest RLB I suppose she'd be fighting from the right, but I accept possibly not as obviously right as Sir Keir.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Happy to stand corrected; not something I'm very clued up on tbh.
> I suppose I was (maybe erroneously) basing my assumptions on her 2016 resignation, backing of Owen Smith and engagement with Blue Labour conferences (Glasman & Rowenna Davis etc.)
> Were Nandy to gain traction and contest RLB I suppose she'd be fighting from the right, but I accept possibly not as obviously right as Sir Keir.



Why is Starmer more obviously to the right? He seems to be signalling no radical shift in policy, something Nandy appears to suggest by her criticism of that stance.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 4, 2020)

Not a popular opinion on here but I’ll be voting for Keir.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 4, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Why is Starmer more obviously to the right? He seems to be signalling no radical shift in policy, something Nandy appears to suggest by her criticism of that stance.


Starmer will present himself as the unity candidate . There won’t be a radical shift but there will be an incremental one and I suspect a lot of the election manifesto will be culled / changed bit by bit . Be interesting to see what he might have to offer Northern voters as municipal Labour in the North will prob come out for him .( as they will in London) I suspect offers of more Northern Powerhouse type  regionalisation .


----------



## andysays (Jan 4, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> So Nandy and Phillips both declared now.
> 
> Slim pickings really isn't it


Slim Pickens would make as good a leader as anyone we've had suggested so far, TBH, even though he's been dead for years.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 4, 2020)

The bright side of all this is Chukka must be kicking himself. Now could have been his chance, for someone who so clearly seeks power,  the man has an excellent talent for making the wrong choices


----------



## chilango (Jan 4, 2020)

I'll be honest, part of me hopes they pick some shit centrist who the bubble loves and then watches the vote collapse further.


----------



## chilango (Jan 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> The bright side of all this is Chukka must be kicking himself. Now could have been his chance, for someone who so clearly seeks power,  the man has an excellent talent for making the wrong choices



King over the water. Sat by his phone waiting for the call. It's only a matter of time before some vacuity in the media suggests him.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 4, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Starmer will present himself as the unity candidate . There won’t be a radical shift but there will be an incremental one and I suspect a lot of the election manifesto will be culled / changed bit by bit . Be interesting to see what he might have to offer Northern voters as municipal Labour in the North will prob come out for him .( as they will in London) I suspect offers of more Northern Powerhouse type  regionalisation .



Yes probably so. The manifesto had lots of good bits, but as a whole it was not generally considered credible. Keeping substantial parts  while being cautious on others isn’t a problem imo. Labour needs to build a broad consensus for change. It becomes a problem when market based ‘solutions’ or anti trade unionism kicks in. Is that Starmer?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 4, 2020)

chilango said:


> I'll be honest, part of me hopes they pick some shit centrist who the bubble loves and then watches the vote collapse further.



I'd quite like that tbf, I always thought one of the positives of the corbyn thing could be the inevitable crushing disappointment leading to a more thorough break with labour, maybe some big unions peeling off.

But honestly I dunno why there seems to be a sense a centrist type will win, I think it's a media thing cos that's what these wankers want, I don't see how they are going to get the votes - ok from MPs & MEPs but membership, affiliated supporters (unions), fee paying supporters - nah. How.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 4, 2020)

Does it work like that? Crushing disappointment could just as easily lead to hopelessness. Sometimes you have to win, have a sense of agency and effectiveness to carry on. It's hard keeping on going politically if all you're doing is trying to stop things getting worse.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 4, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Does it work like that? Crushing disappointment could just as easily lead to hopelessness. Sometimes you have to win, have a sense of agency and effectiveness to carry on. It's hard keeping on going politically if all you're doing is trying to stop things getting worse.



Yeah I don't disagree, it's never a 2+2 thing is it, just that I saw that as a possible outcome not an inevitability. Corbynism was never going to deliver the socialism that a lot of its motivated supporters wanted, it was always going to end in disappointment whether that was in govt or outside of that, I just kind of hoped that there was scope for a positive legacy, something that moved us further along than where we were before 2015


----------



## moochedit (Jan 4, 2020)

chilango said:


> King over the water. Sat by his phone waiting for the call. It's only a matter of time before some vacuity in the media suggests him.



Not an mp anymore and not a labour member.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Happy to stand corrected; not something I'm very clued up on tbh.
> I suppose I was (maybe erroneously) basing my assumptions on her 2016 resignation, backing of Owen Smith and engagement with Blue Labour conferences (Glasman & Rowenna Davis etc.)
> Were Nandy to gain traction and contest RLB I suppose she'd be fighting from the right, but I accept possibly not as obviously right as Sir Keir.


And 'Blue Labour', such as it still exists (?), appear to be pitching in behind the Nandy bid:


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 4, 2020)

I kinda like nandy, but I am sure she is going to move towards “blue” Labour - yuck!


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 4, 2020)

Here's a golden opportunity for Jess Philips supporters to back her campaign to make the Labour Party all about her Jess Phillips for Labour Leader campaign


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Why is Starmer more obviously to the right? He seems to be signalling no radical shift in policy, something Nandy appears to suggest by her criticism of that stance


Because of his longtime political record. Nandy was, and is, clearly to the left of New Labour. Starmer pushed for a pro-EU policy he abstained on the Welfare bill (so did Nandy but she was on maternity leave at the time and said she would have voted against).


Mr Moose said:


> Yes probably so. The manifesto had lots of good bits, but as a whole it was not generally considered credible. Keeping substantial parts  while being cautious on others isn’t a problem imo. Labour needs to build a broad consensus for change. It becomes a problem when market based ‘solutions’ or anti trade unionism kicks in. Is that Starmer?


"Credible", christ.


> "The choice for Labour is to renew itself as the serious, progressive, non-Conservative competitor for power in British politics, or retreat from such an ambition, in which case over time it will be replaced,” Blair said.


Five years time and a shit load of people are either going to embrace and/or get mugged by some centrist crap.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 4, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Because of his longtime political record. Nandy was, and is, clearly to the left of New Labour. Starmer pushed for a pro-EU policy he abstained on the Welfare bill (so did Nandy but she was on maternity leave at the time and said she would have voted against).
> "Credible", christ.
> 
> Five years time and a shit load of people are either going to embrace and/or get mugged by some centrist crap.



Sigh. There was lots that I liked in the manifesto, but the post election research clearly showed that many voters Labour would have wanted/hoped to attract didn’t believe it all or believe it was possible/credible. It’s what they said. There may be many reasons for that, but it’s hardly a New Labour plot to say so.

Your belief about Nandy v Starmer looks like wishful thinking. Both supported Owen Smith. You may prefer Nandy because you think she will listen to the Northern w/class vote, but she may just hear what she wants to hear.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 4, 2020)

chilango said:


> King over the water. Sat by his phone waiting for the call. It's only a matter of time before some vacuity in the media suggests him.


Guardian editorial writers dream; it isn't happening.


----------



## chilango (Jan 4, 2020)

moochedit said:


> Not an mp anymore and not a labour member.





MickiQ said:


> Guardian editorial writers dream; it isn't happening.



Oh I know.

Won't stop dickheads dickheading though will it?


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 4, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Here's a golden opportunity for Jess Philips supporters to back her campaign to make the Labour Party all about her Jess Phillips for Labour Leader campaign


I admit to liking the idea of Jess Phillips as Leader of the Opposition, I like people who speak their minds and she definitely does that. I think she won't hesitate to call BoZo out for being a tosser and that is pretty much going to be all the PLP can do for the next decade.
Don't think she will win though, my money is on Starmer with Long-Bailey in with a chance. Prior to the election if Corbyn had suddenly pegged it I would have put Long-Bailey as a shoe-in but the Labour Left seems to be pretty much in a state of ongoing collapse at the moment. 
I suspect Starmer will do a competent job as Leader of the Opposition and will probably carry a few by election victories but he ain't going to win a GE.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> I think she won't hesitate to call BoZo out for being a tosser and that is pretty much going to be all the PLP can do for the next decade.


Even with the LP's track-record, that seems a tad overly reductive.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Even with the LP's track-record, that seems a tad overly reductive.


I would love for you to be right and me wrong but sadly I suspect not. BoZo talent for building a consensus is on a par with his sense of fashion and since he doesn't need too, he won't.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> I admit to liking the idea of Jess Phillips as Leader of the Opposition, I like people who speak their minds and she definitely does that. I think she won't hesitate to call BoZo out for being a tosser and that is pretty much going to be all the PLP can do for the next decade.
> Don't think she will win though, my money is on Starmer with Long-Bailey in with a chance. Prior to the election if Corbyn had suddenly pegged it I would have put Long-Bailey as a shoe-in but the Labour Left seems to be pretty much in a state of ongoing collapse at the moment.
> I suspect Starmer will do a competent job as Leader of the Opposition and will probably carry a few by election victories but he ain't going to win a GE.


She hasn't a hope in hell of winning prob be one of the earliest to be knocked out. Of course the Labour Party could do a little more than just call Johnson a tosser, they could canvass opinion amongst the working class in the areas they have to win back to see what they would want from and what they would want Labour to do in their areas. Dunno about you but I haven't heard her say anything about economic policies or much else apart from herself.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> I admit to liking the idea of Jess Phillips as Leader of the Opposition, I like people who speak their minds and she definitely does that. I think she won't hesitate to call BoZo out for being a tosser and that is pretty much going to be all the PLP can do for the next decade.
> Don't think she will win though, my money is on Starmer with Long-Bailey in with a chance. Prior to the election if Corbyn had suddenly pegged it I would have put Long-Bailey as a shoe-in but the Labour Left seems to be pretty much in a state of ongoing collapse at the moment.
> I suspect Starmer will do a competent job as Leader of the Opposition and will probably carry a few by election victories but he ain't going to win a GE.



As much as I think we should hear what the candidates have to say, what on Earth would make anyone conclude thus far that self-promoting gobby Phillips would be a good leader? She offers no discernible political philosophy other than a bit of vague feminism, gives no impression that she has any organisational or leadership skills and is a walking target thanks to her tendency to say the first thing that occurs to her. It’s hard to imagine her unifying the Party other than left and right may dislike her equally.


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 4, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> She hasn't a hope in hell of winning prob be one of the earliest to be knocked out. Of course the Labour Party could do a little more than just call Johnson a tosser, they could canvass opinion amongst the working class in the areas they have to win back to see what they would want from and what they would want Labour to do in their areas. Dunno about you but I haven't heard her say anything about economic policies or much else apart from herself.


All political parties not just Labour should be canvassing opinion from the public, Clearly the current situation shows that the Tories have done a much better job of it than anyone.
The Labour leadership is making lots of noise about they need to go back to their roots and get a handle on what the people they claim to represent actually want. I hope they do because if they don't I will probably be dead long before there is another Labour Government. My biggest concern is I suspect that what the Northern working class want and what the Labour Party (as it stands) thinks they should have are 2 very different things.
I


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2020)

My old Mum will be pleased.
Parts his hair nicely and clean-shaven and all that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Sigh. There was lots that I liked in the manifesto, but the post election research clearly showed that many voters Labour would have wanted/hoped to attract didn’t believe it all or believe it was possible/credible. It’s what they said. There may be many reasons for that, but it’s hardly a New Labour plot to say so.
> 
> Your belief about Nandy v Starmer looks like wishful thinking. Both supported Owen Smith. You may prefer Nandy because you think she will listen to the Northern w/class vote, but she may just hear what she wants to hear.


First paragraph is simply wrong. The manifesto was not the issue raised by voters for not voting Labour, it was the EU policy (backed by Starmer and people like you) and Corbyn.

Second, I don't care for either the LP is the problem not the solution but it is simply wishful thinking that Nandy is not to the left of Starmer. Nandy has a long track record to show her support on issues such as welfare. Starmer has nothing, but pushing for a pro-EU agenda.

(I said above it would be five years but it's clear that was too generous, clearly plenty falling in behind a liberal wanker like Starmer already)


----------



## kebabking (Jan 4, 2020)

redsquirrel - the first paragraph is _not _simply wrong, it was something that was a problem on the doorstep, and became moreso as the campaign went on. Canvassers reported widespread scepticism that any government, even one without brexit in its in-tray, could do half of it in one term - and as each new announcement came out the scepticism turned in incredulity, and the inability of canvassers and candidates to keep up with this 'considered and costed programme for government' made it worse.

Comments ranged from 'its like a 5 year old in a sweet shop', to 'whats next - everyone gets a go on Cheryl Cole?'

The policies were popular on an individual level, but grouped together it was such a wish list that voters thought Labour was just taking the piss out of them. This, in case you've not read Politics 101, did not help.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 4, 2020)

kebabking said:


> redsquirrel - the first paragraph is _not _simply wrong, it was something that was a problem on the doorstep, and became moreso as the campaign went on. Canvassers reported widespread scepticism that any government, even one without brexit in its in-tray, could do half of it in one term - and as each new announcement came out the scepticism turned in incredulity, and the inability of canvassers and candidates to keep up with this 'considered and costed programme for government' made it worse.
> 
> Comments ranged from 'its like a 5 year old in a sweet shop', to 'whats next - everyone gets a go on Cheryl Cole?'
> 
> The policies were popular on an individual level, but grouped together it was such a wish list that voters thought Labour was just taking the piss out of them. This, in case you've not read Politics 101, did not help.



People with a negative view of something find justifications for that negativity.

Labour lost seats that had leave majorities and retained seats which leant remain. There is only one labour policy that would cause that.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 4, 2020)

Well Starmer's launch video is pretty impressive for what he has actually achieved. Of course it will be pulled to bits for what is not included in the video. As launch videos go I think it comes across pretty well.


----------



## Supine (Jan 4, 2020)

Very professional. A bet some Kier haters will have learnt some positive stuff from that.


----------



## AndrewNumLock (Jan 5, 2020)

I'm going to vote for Lisa Nandy!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> redsquirrel - the first paragraph is _not _simply wrong, it was something that was a problem on the doorstep, and became moreso as the campaign went on. Canvassers reported widespread scepticism that any government, even one without brexit in its in-tray, could do half of it in one term - and as each new announcement came out the scepticism turned in incredulity, and the inability of canvassers and candidates to keep up with this 'considered and costed programme for government' made it worse.
> 
> Comments ranged from 'its like a 5 year old in a sweet shop', to 'whats next - everyone gets a go on Cheryl Cole?'


Sorry what are you basing this on? Your own anecdotal evidence? 2nd hand anecdotal evidence?

I'll accept that "simply wrong" was something of an overstatement but polling indicates that the policies of LP were much less a reason for Labour voters not voting Labour than the leadership and Brexit.
I accept that people are not great at recognising their own motivations (as Proper Tidy says people try to justify their views) and that a view on policy and/or the manifesto can easily bleed into a view of the leadership but overall I cannot agree that policy, or even the manifesto, made much difference.

Regardless, the argument for a more "credible" manifesto is an argument for the LP to move to the right, just as it was for jettisoning nationalisation of the railways in favour of a mixed system in the 2015 manifesto, just as it has always been. If one is going to argue - in the path of Blair, Progress, Philips, etc - for "credibility" and a move to the right ok, but then they should have the honesty to admit that is what they are doing, that they are arguing for left-liberalism rather than anything else.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 5, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry what are you basing this on? Your own anecdotal evidence? 2nd hand anecdotal evidence?
> 
> I'll accept that "simply wrong" was something of an overstatement but polling indicates that the policies of LP were much less a reason for Labour voters not voting Labour than the leadership and Brexit.
> I accept that people are not great at recognising their own motivations (as Proper Tidy says people try to justify their views) and that a view on policy and/or the manifesto can easily bleed into a view of the leadership but overall I cannot agree that policy, or even the manifesto, made much difference.
> ...



This is an argument that the voters have no real view or understanding of that manifesto. Plainly wrong and it played into the biggest reason that Labour didn’t win, its leadership. That was the biggest doorstep issue. It’s like that article/blog posted on here a while back, it lost over Brexit, failed to win because of its leadership. This constant determination that only the Brexit stance mattered above all is not listening.

As for whether changing that manifesto represents a shift to the right, that’s simply the oldest debate on the left. Is it selling out or simply trying to find what is possible? We know that any effort to find that will have you sniping from Squirrel Towers.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 5, 2020)

I reckon Keir will be able to land some decent punches and have a positive vision which is more than a winge or an attempt to roll back time.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> This is an argument that the voters have no real view or understanding of that manifesto. Plainly wrong and it played into the biggest reason that Labour didn’t win, its leadership. That was the biggest doorstep issue. It’s like that article/blog posted on here a while back, it lost over Brexit, failed to win because of its leadership. This constant determination that only the Brexit stance mattered above all is not listening.
> 
> As for whether changing that manifesto represents a shift to the right, that’s simply the oldest debate on the left. Is it selling out or simply trying to find what is possible? We know that any effort to find that will have you sniping from Squirrel Towers.



So if citing brexit stance as determining factor is not listening, why did labour hold seats like eg chester & cardiff north but lost eg don valley and wrexham


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy - the listening thing requires you to listen to the unpalatable news as well as the stuff that you find politically convenient. The left of Labour looks very much like it has taken the decision to listen to the 'it was brexit' stuff and ignore everything else because it hurts more - that may be comforting for you, but it's a very poor decision for the future.

Corbyn was a _huge _problem on the doorstep, Brexit was also a _huge _problem - though a lesser one than Corbyn, and the manifesto was a significant problem (much less so than the top two, but it was the runner up) for two reasons - firstly the _unicorns on a stick _nature of it, which people just didn't believe and thought was taking the piss out of them, and secondly that there was so much of it that canvassers simply couldn't respond when they were asked about the specifics of anything other than the NHS or rail nationalisation - and they were. They either had to change the subject or stand there looking thick.

Part of that was the size/scope of the manifesto, part of that was the total absence of any kind of build up in the public and party workers mind as to what was going to be on offer, and part of it was the utter ineptness of the party/campaign leadership to the idea of The Grid - canvassers had no idea what senior figures would be talking about on the TV and radio that morning and therefore what subjects were likely to come up on the doorstep that evening.

But, you know, just blame it on brexit and I'm sure it will all be fine.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Proper Tidy - the listening thing requires you to listen to the unpalatable news as well as the stuff that you find politically convenient. The left of Labour looks very much like it has taken the decision to listen to the 'it was brexit' stuff and ignore everything else because it hurts more - that may be comforting for you, but it's a very poor decision for the future.
> 
> Corbyn was a _huge _problem on the doorstep, Brexit was also a _huge _problem - though a lesser one than Corbyn, and the manifesto was a significant problem (much less so than the top two, but it was the runner up) for two reasons - firstly the _unicorns on a stick _nature of it, which people just didn't believe and thought was taking the piss out of them, and secondly that there was so much of it that canvassers simply couldn't respond when they were asked about the specifics of anything other than the NHS or rail nationalisation - and they were. They either had to change the subject or stand there looking thick.
> 
> ...



I haven't disputed corbyn was an issue. We were talking about the policies.

But anyway, why were labour policies (or corbyn if you'd prefer) unpalatable in leave leaning constituencies when labour held some very marginal traditional tory and remain leaving seats? Or for that matter what changed between 2017 - 2019? I don't think it's those citing brexit position who are ignoring the uncomfortable.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I haven't disputed corbyn was an issue. We were talking about the policies.
> 
> But anyway, why were labour policies (or corbyn if you'd prefer) unpalatable in leave leaning constituencies when labour held some very marginal traditional tory and remain leaving seats? Or for that matter what changed between 2017 - 2019? I don't think it's those citing brexit position who are ignoring the uncomfortable.



Labour _policies _weren't unpalatable - on an individual level they were popular - there wasn't one domestic economic policy that aroused some hostility. What aroused _scepticism _was the idea that all/most of them could be done in 5 years - where this _scepticism _hurt labour was were there was already scepticism/hostility towards Corbyn and the brexit position - the effect was cumulative, it had a 'straw that broke the camel's back' nature, rather than 'i like Corbyn, I like the brexit position, but this manifesto is just bollocks' nature. 

It's effect on the ground was to reduce the number of voters who were sceptical/ambivalent about Corbyn and the brexit position but who were prepared to vote for Labour/against the Tories. If you were a Corbyn fan it had no negative effect, if you were a brexit position fan it had no effect - but Labours' problem is that the number of voters in those two categories is vanishingly small....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Labour _policies _weren't unpalatable - on an individual level they were popular - there wasn't one domestic economic policy that aroused some hostility. What aroused _scepticism _was the idea that all/most of them could be done in 5 years - where this _scepticism _hurt labour was were there was already scepticism/hostility towards Corbyn and the brexit position - the effect was cumulative, it had a 'straw that broke the camel's back' nature, rather than 'i like Corbyn, I like the brexit position, but this manifesto is just bollocks' nature.
> 
> It's effect on the ground was to reduce the number of voters who were sceptical/ambivalent about Corbyn and the brexit position but who were prepared to vote for Labour/against the Tories. If you were a Corbyn fan it had no negative effect, if you were a brexit position fan it had no effect - but Labours' problem is that the number of voters in those two categories is vanishingly small....



Ok, so why did this disproportionately affect labour in constituencies that voted leave not constituencies that voted remain


----------



## kenny g (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ok, so why did this disproportionately affect labour in constituencies that voted leave not constituencies that voted remain



I guess because there was that added cumulative effect. Kebabking's argument is persuasive but also almost irrefutable...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

kenny g said:


> I guess because there was that added cumulative effect. Kebabking's argument is persuasive but also almost irrefutable...



I said quite a bit earlier than people disinclined to vote labour would seek justifications - leadership, policies, historic links to groups etc. Are they genuine issues, yeah. But could labour have won (or secured a hung parliament) if any of these changed - no. Not with its brexit position, as demonstrated by the seats it lost and the seats it held. Could labour have won or secured a hung parliament if all these stayed the same but it had a different brexit position based on respecting the referendum outcome. Yes, as demonstrated by the seats it lost and the seats it held. And by 2017.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ok, so why did this disproportionately affect labour in constituencies that voted leave not constituencies that voted remain



It did. Just not enough to push them back over the winning/losing line.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> It did. Just not enough to push them back over the winning/losing line.



It's true labour lost vote share even in seats it held. But in eg cardiff north (I keep citing welsh seats cos it's what I know best) which is middle class and trad tory it lost 0.65%. Cardiff north voted remain by 61%. In Bridgend, working class and trad labour, the loss was 10.3%. Bridgend voted leave by 55%. Aside from referendum, one of these seats ticks the boxes for where labour should get a good reception, and one doesn't.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2020)

Calm down dears...our saviour has come.



Lessons learnt.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 5, 2020)

Supine said:


> Very professional. A bet some Kier haters will have learnt some positive stuff from that.



Starmer is the Kinnock of the election runners. Talking left to move Labour right. Are LP members really daft enough to fall for his stitched together ‘radical’ backstory and usefully vague defence of the ‘public sector’ by Corbyn? Probably.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Starmer is the Kinnock of the election runners. Talking left to move Labour right. Are LP members really daft enough to fall for his stitched together ‘radical’ backstory and usefully vague defence of the ‘public sector’ by Corbyn? Probably.




Trouble is, a lot of LP members will right now feel attracted to competence, and the appearance of professionality. And they'll think those are more important (just after a disastrous election) than details of policy changes.
(I do agree with your viewpoint here btw).


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> So if citing brexit stance as determining factor is not listening, why did labour hold seats like eg chester & cardiff north but lost eg don valley and wrexham



No of course Brexit was vitally important you are correct. But had Labour retained its lukewarm Leave position it would also have been sunk and probably torn in two even before the election to the Lib Dems’ benefit. There wasn’t a way out other than to be very electable on other issues.

It seemed for a while it could do that and succeeded in raising the NHS and austerity to key issues the Tories had to respond to. But lack of trust in the leadership was so high it couldn’t capitalise on that ground.

The Broadband issue was symptomatic, a massive positive to deliver this nationally to support health, culture, services and commerce. But where had been the ground laying work to establish if giving this for free to the 2/3rds who can comfortably afford it was the right policy or an attractive one?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 5, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Trouble is, a lot of LP members will right now feel attracted to competence, and the appearance of professionality. And they'll think those are more important (just after a disastrous election) than details of policy changes.
> (I do agree with your viewpoint here btw).



Starmer’s gormless performance on Marr today, especially in respect of his explanation for his position on Brexit, suggests that isn’t his strongest point.

Do people who joined ‘for Jeremy’ really want to usher in political thermidor?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> No of course Brexit was vitally important you are correct. But had Labour retained its lukewarm Leave position it would also have been sunk and probably torn in two even before the election to the Lib Dems’ benefit. There wasn’t a way out other than to be very electable on other issues.



I'm not convinced. LibDem threat - well would it have happened, every GE is a choice between tories and labour. One constituency (remain) had a choice between tory brexit or wherever softer option labour offered. The other constituency already had what it wanted on the table from tories. Only way to fight the election on issues other than brexit would have been to offer this constituency the same - leave, in some form - so that the choice could be between everything else on table.

The switch to remain wasn't about being electable. It was about keeping the internal coalition together. Imo anyway.


----------



## andysays (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's true labour lost vote share even in seats it held. But in eg cardiff north (I keep citing welsh seats cos it's what I know best) which is middle class and trad tory it lost 0.65%. Cardiff north voted remain by 61%. In Bridgend, working class and trad labour, the loss was 10.3%. Bridgend voted leave by 55%. Aside from referendum, one of these seats ticks the boxes for where labour should get a good reception, and one doesn't.


The thing is, you're comparing two seats which, according to you are/were different in at least three ways, class basis, traditional support for Labour or Tory and Leave or Remain support. On that basis it's impossible to say whether the decline in the Labour vote was mostly down to their Brexit position or to other factors. 

I'm not saying it wasn't down to Brexit, I think that over the whole country that was probably the largest factor, larger than dislike of Corbyn and larger than scepticism over policy.

But it's also important to recognise that the balance of those three factors and others is likely to be different in different constituencies which are different from each other in a variety of different ways.

To reduce things to saying it was the Brexit policy which lost it for them (and I'm not suggesting that's what you're saying that, just developing a line of thought) is to oversimplify something which had a complex mixture of reasons, just as focussing solely on the so-called traditional northern heartlands would be an oversimplification. 

It's also worth remembering that Labour's 2019 Brexit policy won't be an issue at the next election, providing they can put together a coherent Brexit policy for 2020 and the future.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Labour _policies _weren't unpalatable - on an individual level they were popular - there wasn't one domestic economic policy that aroused some hostility. What aroused _scepticism _was the idea that all/most of them could be done in 5 years - where this _scepticism _hurt labour was were there was already scepticism/hostility towards Corbyn and the brexit position - the effect was cumulative, it had a 'straw that broke the camel's back' nature, rather than 'i like Corbyn, I like the brexit position, but this manifesto is just bollocks' nature.
> 
> It's effect on the ground was to reduce the number of voters who were sceptical/ambivalent about Corbyn and the brexit position but who were prepared to vote for Labour/against the Tories. If you were a Corbyn fan it had no negative effect, if you were a brexit position fan it had no effect - but Labours' problem is that the number of voters in those two categories is vanishingly small....


The only problem with Labours manifesto was that there were too many pledges , so many that as soon as the next one appeared it was hard to remember what the others were.However  I doubt if scepticism that they could be achieved in five years was a factor at all tbh mainly due to the fact that many of the key ones many of them would have been quick implementation ie wages , pensions and the nationalisation ones easily manageable within five years . The notion that scepticism plus Corbyns unpopularity was the straw that broke the camels back conveniently ignores the fact that the straw that broke Corbyn back was Brexit.Despite the media’s constant anti Corbyn deluge and the sustained PLP war of attrition , it was Labours turn around and fudge on Brexit that was the sceptical issue ,not whether or not the rest of the manifesto could be delivered within five years.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

andysays said:


> The thing is, you're comparing two seats which, according to you are/were different in at least three ways, class basis, traditional support for Labour or Tory and Leave or Remain support. On that basis it's impossible to say whether the decline in the Labour vote was mostly down to their Brexit position or to other factors.
> 
> I'm not saying it wasn't down to Brexit, I think that over the whole country that was probably the largest factor, larger than dislike of Corbyn and larger than scepticism over policy.
> 
> ...



I am exactly saying it was the brexit policy that lost it for them tbf. And it was.

I really can't get my head around anybody looking at the seats held and the seats lost, and then adding in 2017 to mix, and coming to any other conclusion. I mean I fully get why the remain second ref revoke types are doing it, for political convenience, I just don't understand why anybody else is giving it the time of day.


----------



## oryx (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I am exactly saying it was the brexit policy that lost it for them tbf. And it was.



Completely agree. I can't imagine many people apart from those really interested in politics took much notice of any party's manifesto, apart from maybe reading the headlines about broadband etc.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 5, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> It went private when he was there, not after, and he attended for another 5 years after that. It's entirely accurate to say that he's  private educated.



but you are blaming him for a decision made by his parents when he was 10 ?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 5, 2020)

well, this (currently doing the rounds on twitter) is an interesting development...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 5, 2020)

Does anyone know of any articles that have done a good job of documenting/summing up what a toxic, backstabbing narcissist Jess Philips is? I see so much bollocks from her on a weekly basis.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

Case in point here. No surprise these two want to avoid scrutiny of remain stance with a convenient stick that also inevitably leads to more limited policy, just weird to see people on here buy it


----------



## andysays (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I am exactly saying it was the brexit policy that lost it for them tbf. And it was.
> 
> I really can't get my head around anybody looking at the seats held and the seats lost, and then adding in 2017 to mix, and coming to any other conclusion. I mean I fully get why the remain second ref revoke types are doing it, for political convenience, I just don't understand why anybody else is giving it the time of day.


Because if it really was just that, then all they would have do is sort that one policy and all their problems would disappear, leading to a glorious victory in 2024. 

But it wasn't and they won't


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Does anyone know of any articles that have done a good job of documenting/summing up what a toxic, backstabbing narcissist Jess Philips is? I see so much bollocks from her on a weekly basis.


Sorry - deleted post as it wasn't helpful


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

andysays said:


> Because if it really was just that, then all they would have do is sort that one policy and all their problems would disappear, leading to a glorious victory in 2024.
> 
> But it wasn't and they won't



Well it's never just one thing. But they can change as much as they like, go to polls again with a policy that is perceived to be ignoring a democratic vote and they'll still be fucked. I mean come on now.


----------



## maomao (Jan 5, 2020)

andysays said:


> Because if it really was just that, then all they would have do is sort that one policy and all their problems would disappear, leading to a glorious victory in 2024.
> 
> But it wasn't and they won't


It was unsortable. They couldn't ignore the majority of their membership and voters who voted remain and they couldn't ignore their crucial leave vote. It was a successful wedge issue. There was no magic solution.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Case in point here. No surprise these two want to avoid scrutiny of remain stance with a convenient stick that also inevitably leads to more limited policy, just weird to see people on here buy itView attachment 195049



Do you think that no one but you was talking to labour canvassers and CLP officials during the election campaign?

Do you think that everyone but you only sees the world through selected Twitter feeds?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Do you think that no one but you was talking to labour canvassers and CLP officials during the election campaign?
> 
> Do you think that everyone but you only sees the world through selected Twitter feeds?



You don't need to speak to canvassers or look at twitter. You just need to look at the seats they lost and held.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> You don't need to speak to canvassers or look at twitter. You just need to look at the seats they lost and held.



Then perhaps you should look a little harder.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Then perhaps you should look a little harder.



Maybe sometimes you spend so long looking into the distance you miss the great big fuck off neon sign right in front of you


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Maybe sometimes you spend so long looking into the distance you miss the great big fuck off neon sign right in front of you



I didn't miss it, I saw it a long way back - because I was looking harder....


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah I don't disagree, it's never a 2+2 thing is it, just that I saw that as a possible outcome not an inevitability. Corbynism was never going to deliver the socialism that a lot of its motivated supporters wanted, it was always going to end in disappointment whether that was in govt or outside of that, I just kind of hoped that there was scope for a positive legacy, something that moved us further along than where we were before 2015



Yeh, I understand, I'd like something to feel hopeful about too.

That was the SWP position though, vote Labour, be disappointed, reject the possibility of socialism through parliament, join the revolutionary party!

eta apologies, not suggesting your were actually proposing the swp position


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Yeh, I understand, I'd like something to feel hopeful about too.
> 
> That was the SWP position though, vote Labour, be disappointed, reject the possibility of socialism through parliament, join the revolutionary party!
> 
> eta apologies, not suggesting your were actually proposing the swp position



Vote labour with no illusions and all that. I suppose I agree with the no illusions bit.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 5, 2020)

I think the point being made here, certainly the one I’d make, is that ‘corbynism’ opened up the suggestion that Britain would take a step away from the orthodoxy of the last 45 years. That people could see the need for the rebuilding of social structures. That the dial was shifting towards social democracy.

That sort of shift would be simultaneously small in terms of material change and yet hugely significant given the past 4 decades. It represented the opening up of other possibilities.

Corbyn was always deeply flawed and prone to self inflicted acts of posturing stupidity. He’s not much of a loss.

But, the real defeat here is the sense that the orthodoxy hasn’t only won it’s been more deeply embedded. That’s what’s so fucking depressing


----------



## alex_ (Jan 5, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> well, this (currently doing the rounds on twitter) is an interesting development...



That’d cause some anguish at the telegraph


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> But, the real defeat here is the sense that the orthodoxy hasn’t only won it’s been more deeply embedded. That’s what’s so fucking depressing



It’s even worse than that imo. The rightwing nationalist Trumpism that Boris and his mob represent is even more vicious, reactionary and racist than the neo-liberal orthodoxy.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 5, 2020)

andysays said:


> The thing is, you're comparing two seats which, according to you are/were different in at least three ways, class basis, traditional support for Labour or Tory and Leave or Remain support. On that basis it's impossible to say whether the decline in the Labour vote was mostly down to their Brexit position or to other factors.
> 
> I'm not saying it wasn't down to Brexit, I think that over the whole country that was probably the largest factor, larger than dislike of Corbyn and larger than scepticism over policy.
> 
> ...





Smokeandsteam said:


> I think the point being made here, certainly the one I’d make, is that ‘corbynism’ opened up the suggestion that Britain would take a step away from the orthodoxy of the last 45 years. That people could see the need for the rebuilding of social structures. That the dial was shifting towards social democracy.
> 
> That sort of shift would be simultaneously small in terms of material change and yet hugely significant given the past 4 decades. It represented the opening up of other possibilities.
> 
> ...


One of the problems with Corbynism ( and indeed the Labour Party) is that it was/ is a coalition with no hegemony. It offered hope to many precisely because hope meant so many things but there’s nothing at the core of it to sustain it .


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 5, 2020)

Sorry didn’t mean to quote Andysays


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 5, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> One of the problems with Corbynism ( and indeed the Labour Party) is that it was/ is a coalition with no hegemony. It offered hope to many precisely because hope meant so many things but there’s nothing at the core of it to sustain it .



I know what you mean. There wasn’t an intellectual, industrial, economic or political narrative driving it. But even with the ramshackle, sometimes badly conceived, nature of it the critical element was that it was a rejection of the last 45 years. Yes, often in a contradictory, misjudged or incoherent manner - but a rejection nonetheless.

In the current circumstances - the state of the left in particular - my view is that was the best achievable at that moment.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2020)

Been reading Proper Tidy posts and agree with a lot of what he is saying.

Its imo worse. 

Here is message to Lambeth Labour party member sent by the leader of the Council Cllr Jack Hopkins. Anyone from Brixton forum will know that Lambeth is run by the Progress / Blairite wing of the party. 

I find the message down right scary. I know local community activists who joined / re joined Labour party due to Corbyn. They are people like me who oppose the New Labour regime that runs Lambeth. 

Yet Hopkins is arguing that his Labour Council works with residents. He criticises Corbyn for being top down. He criticises the new influx membership of not being of being more interested in international issues . ie not bread and butter local issues. 

This criticism of Corybnism makes me really angry.

The New Labour regime that has runn Lambeth for years in totally top down. Any Cllr who started to stick up for residents was expelled from Labour group and stopped from being a Cllr (Rachel Heywood my Cllr).

Local residents like me found ourselves in conflict with local Labour Council over bread and butter services. 

As local person I know said to me this weekend Why don't the Council work with residents to deliver community services that Central government have cut? What imo happens is that local community people are treated with less than enthusiastic response by mainstream Labour party when they take part in supporting local community. 

I find Hopkins message Kafkaesque. Its saying the opposite of what the New Labour Council has been doing. 

It reeks of resentment against the new members. 

No surprise Hopkins supports Keir Starmer for leader. 

Here is what the right of the party think who run Lambeth:



Here is Cllr Jack Hopkins,the leader of the Council and Labour group, reflection on the Labour defeat:

Sorry haven't worked out quotes on new system yet




"Thursday’s election result is a disaster for the people of Lambeth who have already suffered 10 years of austerity and pain from a cruel and uncaring Conservative Government.

After a decade of Tory cuts to our services, of the bedroom tax, of benefit sanctions and of the hostile environment, it’s hard to believe that things could be worse. But for our residents, who will be forced onto universal credit, who will see no help with the housing crisis or who face fear of another Windrush or of their treatment as EU citizens this result is a disaster.

And our capacity to rise to those challenges locally on behalf of our residents has now been made ten times harder.

It is clear from Tory pledges on funding for local government and schools that inner city boroughs like Lambeth will lose out.

And the economic shock which Brexit in whatever form will impact on Lambeth, the wider London economy of which we are a part, and the country at large, will affect everyone but of course the poorest will be hit hardest.

We must redouble our efforts to put people at the heart of everything we do, and to amass a coalition of businesses, organisations, communities and individuals to tackle the crisis in adult social care; the epidemic of violence affecting our young people and the lack of access to opportunities for local people.

Secondly this has been a disaster for the Labour Party. Much speculation is raging about why the offer from the Labour Party was so roundly rejected by the electorate.

We need to be honest about why people didn’t vote for Labour this time in such numbers. Whether it was their view on the leadership or Jeremy Corbyn himself; an absence of electoral strategy with a complete absence of targeting; a manifesto packed with promises but with no coherent narrative giving trust that it was deliverable or desirable; or Brexit and the Party’s unclear and triangulated position.

Frankly we don’t actually know. We must reflect on what we heard on the doorstep and also go back out to the electorate and ask why they voted for us or why they didn’t in each and every one of the seats up and down the country.

What I do know is that the Labour Party is at its strongest when it is of and for the people, when local Labour Parties play a part in their communities and those communities play a part in their local Labour Parties. Too many times in Lambeth, Labour Party branches have spent their evenings debating the rights and wrongs of the Maduro regime in Venezuela or other issues totally disconnected from our communities; all too rarely are they discussing the challenges of serious violence affecting young people or issues that matter to our residents.

Councillors will continue to be part of and in some cases lead those discussions in the community either organising or tying into the conversations the public are having already. The Party needs to do the same.

Jeremy Corbyn’s assertion that “we won the argument” demonstrates the sort of centralising and patronising “we know best” approach which has characterised his time at the helm. The rhetoric around empowering the membership and being grassroots has failed to be delivered in practice. If control over the party and the political processes is allowed to trump the needs, wishes and aspirations of the electorate then the Labour Party will continue to remain unattractive to those we seek to serve and we will continue to lose elections.

As councillors, our aim and promise is to always be on the side of our residents. Too often in the election, it felt like our movement was instead asking voters “are you on our side?”, and if they said they weren’t then they were told they were in the wrong.

It is clear that Jeremy Corbyn should step down as leader. This is his second loss to the worst Tory Government in living memory. I don’t think anyone doubts Jeremy’s convictions, but this is the party’s worst result since the 1930s. I make no judgement on what comes next, except to say that we must have a leadership which recognises that local government and politics done at the grass roots, reflective of the challenges local communities face, must be prioritised and valued.

It is also clear that we cannot rest on our laurels or engage in a naval gazing exercise for a year on the leadership of the Party. Right across the country Labour still governs in Town Halls and City Halls, with crucial local elections in May 2020 not just here in London for Sadiq Khan but in every region of England and Wales. And those leadership candidates need to speak to the country and not just the Labour Party internally. We must recognise that we need power in order to deliver our agenda and that requires the right principles and values, but also a degree of pragmatism which accepts that a one-size-fits-all approach to the whole country will not work.


Here in Lambeth we won all three seats and I am hugely proud of our candidates Helen Hayes MP, Bell Addy-Ribeiro MP and Florence Eshalomi MP, as well as the hundreds of Lambeth Labour activists who made sure Lambeth would be properly represented by three women who reflect the diversity and progressive politics that Lambeth residents want.

However in each seat there was a reduction in the majorities which shows us that we can never be complacent, and that our mandates to govern and represent must be renewed every day, every week and every month.

The results tells me that despite the national picture, our residents in Lambeth still trust the Lambeth Labour brand and were prepared to come out and vote for us. The fact that we are a campaigning and engaging Lambeth Labour Party with a popular programme of delivery and improvement for the Borough has in no small part meant that people still see Lambeth Labour as being on their side.

So the challenge for us in Lambeth is to ensure we are part of and representative of Lambeth, that we are connected in deep ways to civil society and our communities. We form an administration in Lambeth because our Councillors bring the issues that people really care about into the town hall so we can address what really matters to people.

Our borough faces at least another 5 years of Tory misrule so we must remain united and on the side of residents, focused on the issues that matter to them, not locked in another internal Party debate.



Yours in Solidarity,
                                  Jack Hopkins."



Interestingly he also says party should look at why people stuck with Labour. My area Brixton / Loughborough Junction voted Labour. It is a Remain area and swing to Green party / LDs in general election didn't happen. 

People I know offline supported the general thrust of the Labour party manifesto. I don't think my New Labour Cllrs want to hear that. 

On line in Brixton forum the general consensus was the Labour party needs a new Tony Blair. ( not my opinion but I'm a minority view on Brixton forum.) That Corbyn should have gone all out Remain to win the election. ( make it clear not my minority opinion).


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2020)

Its looking to me that Corbyn will be blamed for everything .  Remain MPs and Cllrs will deflect criticism by saying its all about Corbyn. 

The increase in members will be criticised as being those out of touch people with axes to grind over international issues.

What a load off bollox.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Its looking to me that Corbyn will be blamed for everything .  Remain MPs and Cllrs will deflect criticism by saying its all about Corbyn.
> 
> The increase in members will be criticised as being those out of touch people with axes to grind over international issues.
> 
> What a load off bollox.



If you don't like getting the blame when it all turns to shit, you probably ought not to apply for the big job - he _is_ the leader you know, he effectively controls the NEC, the membership are instinctively sympathetic to him, and after the 2017 GE result he had moral and political _carte blanche _to formulate policy, the way it was articulated and by whom. So yes, he was the man at the helm, he had the controls, and he had enough time in office to fashion the party and its message in whatever way he saw fit - so yes, it's his shit sandwich.


----------



## Supine (Jan 5, 2020)

From what I've read in the last few weeks I'm not sure anybody can bring the labor factions together. All sides seem intent on ideological purity rather than forming a left of centre force that can win elections.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> If you don't like getting the blame when it all turns to shit, you probably ought not to apply for the big job - he _is_ the leader you know, he effectively controls the NEC, the membership are instinctively sympathetic to him, and after the 2017 GE result he had moral and political _carte blanche _to formulate policy, the way it was articulated and by whom. So yes, he was the man at the helm, he had the controls, and he had enough time in office to fashion the party and its message in whatever way he saw fit - so yes, it's his shit sandwich.



You make it sound so simple.

My viewpoint is from someone on the ground , whose involved in local bread and butter community issues., in a Council run by New Labour ideologues. 

Its not that simple. 

The party in my area has been run by the Blairite wing of the Labour party for years. They were deeply entrenched.  As I said my local Cllr was expelled for not being "on message". 

This at grass roots level is the party that Corbyn had to deal with. And they are ruthless.

In Streatham the new membership now control the party . What Hopkins didn't say was the the new MP was from the Corbyn wing of the party. 

Corbyn had to deal with an apparatus that was solidly against him. I know the feeling. I really should not have to be arguing with Labour Cllrs about disposing of community facilities. 

I really hope the new membership doesn't leave the party now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> If you don't like getting the blame when it all turns to shit, you probably ought not to apply for the big job - he _is_ the leader you know, he effectively controls the NEC, the membership are instinctively sympathetic to him, and after the 2017 GE result he had moral and political _carte blanche _to formulate policy, the way it was articulated and by whom. So yes, he was the man at the helm, he had the controls, and he had enough time in office to fashion the party and its message in whatever way he saw fit - so yes, it's his shit sandwich.



A lot of truth in this, particularly the freedom he enjoyed post '17 GE to remodel labour message and policy. But the big exception to this was labour's brexit position, which was a shit show because of the people now putting the boot in and banging on about everything but the brexit position, or at best that it was because the position was 'muddled'.

Anybody expecting the moderate types to have any idea of how to reconnect with w/c voters and make labour A Party Of Government again is in for a rude awakening


----------



## gosub (Jan 5, 2020)

What time frame are you talking for being a party of government?   Coz if its 2024 then they really should be signposting June 2021 .  Coz it was clear from early on in the election campaign that even if Labour had done well, it would be more likely than not be beholden to the SNP


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2020)

Supine said:


> From what I've read in the last few weeks I'm not sure anybody can bring the labor factions together. All sides seem intent on ideological purity rather than forming a left of centre force that can win elections.



My personal experience of Lambeth Council run by the New Labour wing of the party, not what I've read, is that it was not "left of centre".

The locals I know who joined after Corbyn became leader were not interested in "ideological purity". They were basically what could roughly be called "old" Labour- Believe in Council housing , public services for example. They were not ex Trots or ex members of Militant.

On libraries, Council housing "regeneration" projects the New Labour Council found itself out of touch with local communities.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You make it sound so simple.
> 
> My viewpoint is from someone on the ground , whose involved in local bread and butter community issues., in a Council run by New Labour ideologues.
> 
> ...



Sorry, are you suggesting that its leaders of borough councils who set Brexit policy, or who _force _Corbyn to get far more exercised by the killing by the US of a Iranian general than by the use, by Russia, of Chemical weapons in a British city?

Is it incurable blairites who compel Corbyn to be friends with every crackpot conspiraloon and anti-Semite he can find?

Perhaps it's borough councillors no one has ever heard of who bar him from sacking shadow cabinet ministers who make up and change party policy on the hoof?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Sorry, are you suggesting that its leaders of borough councils who set Brexit policy, or who _force _Corbyn to get far more exercised by the killing by the US of a Iranian general than by the use, by Russia, of Chemical weapons in a British city?
> 
> Is it incurable blairites who compel Corbyn to be friends with every crackpot conspiraloon and anti-Semite he can find?
> 
> Perhaps it's borough councillors no one has ever heard of who bar him from sacking shadow cabinet ministers who make up and change party policy on the hoof?



What I'm talking about is my area. Based on my personal experience. 

In my area Lambeth/ Inner London the Labour vote held up well. 

People I know supported a manifesto that was going to reverse austerity. The main issues in my area are housing (affordable that is),. knife crime, lack of opportunities for young people,, cuts to youth centres. 

I live in Council ward in London that is in the top 20% most deprived in London. 

The issues your are going on about aren't really the most pressing for people in my area. 

An issue that was pressing was Windrush. As I live in area with large Black British population I would say not voting Tory was also that Tories were associated with Windrush. This affected some Black British people I know. Who had family or friends caught up in it. So the Tories were considered to be the racist party.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 5, 2020)

Supine said:


> From what I've read in the last few weeks I'm not sure anybody can bring the labor factions together. All sides seem intent on ideological purity rather than forming a left of centre force that can win elections.


With the likes of Starmer and Phillips there is no point in winning an election: all they have to offer is reheated Blairism. But dogshit warmed up is still dogshit. Apart from Starmers utter dishonesty in the phone hacking case, Phillips is the charmless creep who promised to stab Jeremy Corbyn “in the front” and also made excuses for sex-pest Brendan Cox. No time for either of them. Has to be RLB otherwise the reversal of the New Labour nightmare will have been for nothing.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 6, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> With the likes of Starmer and Phillips there is no point in winning an election: all they have to offer is reheated Blairism. But dogshit warmed up is still dogshit. Apart from Starmers utter dishonesty in the phone hacking case, Phillips is the charmless creep who promised to stab Jeremy Corbyn “in the front” and also made excuses for sex-pest Brendan Cox. No time for either of them. Has to be RLB otherwise the reversal of the New Labour nightmare will have been for nothing.


Hi - what was the dishonesty in the phone hacking case?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> With the likes of Starmer and Phillips there is no point in winning an election: all they have to offer is reheated Blairism. But dogshit warmed up is still dogshit. Apart from Starmers utter dishonesty in the phone hacking case, Phillips is the charmless creep who promised to stab Jeremy Corbyn “in the front” and also made excuses for sex-pest Brendan Cox. No time for either of them. Has to be RLB otherwise the reversal of the New Labour nightmare will have been for nothing.


I agree that it has to be RLB, but I'm underwhelmed by her. Hopefully she can surprise me. I don't think Phillips can win. I fear that Starmer can, though.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 6, 2020)

Lavery if he were to stand?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Hi - what was the dishonesty in the phone hacking case?


A long story but essentially Starmer covered up for his predecessor Ken McDonald, who was as thick as thieves with News International. Specifically, he never refuted John Yates’ point that the police originally didn’t cast the net wide enough on the basis that 2006 CPS advice (Carmen Dowd) suggested CPS would not support police doing it as no case in law for prosecution. When CPS eventually changed their mind in 2010 Yates handed over investigation and Operation Tuleta started. Starmer never admitted the truth of this in his spat with Yates. He was also quite clever, after Nick Davies first Guardian story in 2009, in immediately opening up CPS files to Mr Ego so that subsequently Yates and the Met got the flak, not the CPS. I’ve written a lot on this, at some point Ill publish it.

and then there is Starmers role in instructing police to automatically believe, without checking, claims of alleged victims of paedophilia. Which directly led to the ‘Nick’ scandal where a malevolent fantasist was given free rein.

the point about Starmer isn’t just that he’s a right-wing shit, but an incompetent one at that. Though very competent at getting fawning media coverage, so much so that virtually nobody ever criticises him...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 6, 2020)

Been catching up with the last week or so of this thread, so apologies if I'm going back to the 'progressive patriotism' shite a bit. But starting from there:

I think RLB's 'progressive patrotism' line shows that it isn't _just_ Starmer and Phillips that are completely tainted by their total failure to understand the EU referendum result or to offer anything to traditional working class Labour voters. It does sound a very 'focus group' produced line and that's unsurprising. The thing is, no one in the Labour Party, not Corbyn himself or anyone else is really on record as putting forward any analysis of the reasons people voted to leave *that were not* nationalism, racism and xenophobia. There was plenty of talk about respecting the referendum result (in 2017, not in 2019, anyone arguing that the difference in vote share is because of anything else needs to give their head a wobble) but no explanation or understanding of why people voted to leave. That missing narrative was filled by Blairites and centrists who simply said that people were racist or stupid or hated immigrants or whatever.

I've seen *a lot *of people who wanted a second referendum say that this GE was a second referendum and they lost. It wasn't a second referendum but they wanted it to be and so did Johnson, because it allowed Johnson to win. Now that same section of seferendum/remainiac types is saying that they have lost the argument, but they genuinely believe they've lost an argument about racism and nationalism, not membership of a neoliberal suprastate. Consequently figures like Starmer and Mason are saying we need to accept it and move on (4 years too late) but they aren't really accepting that they lost the argument, what they're doing is saying that the electorate is racist and nationalistic but that they have preserved their moral integrity by losing this election.

Starmer's position (and the position of the right of Labour) is effectively:

1) The 2016 vote was racist, nationalistic and economically irresponsible
2) The 2016 vote must be overturned at the expense of everything else
3) The 2019 vote shows that the electorate support economic irresponsibility, racism and nationalism
4) Labour must be seen to accept that they lost the election (because of the electorate) and get on with the day to day until Brexit is proved to be an economic disaster with unpleasant racist and nationalist overtones and everyone realises how prinicipled Starmer (and the Labour right) were

The problem with this is even if RLB's position wasn't quite as daft as Starmer's, her position _now _is that the electorate is racist and nationalistic and you can't pander to the racism so you need to pander to the nationalism in some way or other. It's fucking awful and it won't help one iota in terms of Labour being a credible party of opposition or challenging the Tories.

On the plus side though, means I can keep justifying not joining the Labour Party. I actually don't think RLB will hack it - she's already binned an advisor as a result of press pressure and this progressive patriotism thing shows she hasn't got a clue - and we'll see Starmer (the architect-in-chief of Labour's 2019 defeat) emerge as Labour leader. Which will surely restore the trend of the PASOKification of the Labour Party which has been going on since 2001, despite the 2017 outlier. But even if RLB could win, meh, so what.



two sheds said:


> Lavery if he were to stand?



Yeah, probably actually. He's the only possible candidate who actually has said anything semi worhwhile about the referendum and he's a cut above the rest politically, not that that says much. Ex Militant too I think or at least very close to them back in the day. But he probably won't stand and even if he does RLB will nuke him over the money he took from the NUM. Which will mean RLB will spend a chunk of the leadership campaign talking about trade union corruption. Joy/Great start.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 6, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> A long story but essentially Starmer covered up for his predecessor Ken McDonald, who was as thick as thieves with News International. Specifically, he never refuted John Yates’ point that the police originally didn’t cast the net wide enough on the basis that 2006 CPS advice (Carmen Dowd) suggested CPS would not support police doing it as no case in law for prosecution. When CPS eventually changed their mind in 2010 Yates handed over investigation and Operation Tuleta started. Starmer never admitted the truth of this in his spat with Yates. He was also quite clever, after Nick Davies first Guardian story in 2009, in immediately opening up CPS files to Mr Ego so that subsequently Yates and the Met got the flak, not the CPS. I’ve written a lot on this, at some point Ill publish it.
> 
> and then there is Starmers role in instructing police to automatically believe, without checking, claims of alleged victims of paedophilia. Which directly led to the ‘Nick’ scandal where a malevolent fantasist was given free rein.
> 
> the point about Starmer isn’t just that he’s a right-wing shit, but an incompetent one at that. Though very competent at getting fawning media coverage, so much so that virtually nobody ever criticises him...



I'm never going to stop banging on about the dozens of unsafe convictions of activists Starmer presided over while chief prosecutor. Instead of overturning the relevant convictions and resigning from public life in disgrace, he ordered a whitewash review which found 'no systemic failings' despite the enormous loophole in the legal system that had been exposed. He then 'invited' those he knew to be wrongfully convicted to appeal.





__





						How Police Created a Miscarriage of Justice - Undercover Research Group
					

Who hid Mark Kennedy? 'Operation Aeroscope revisited' reveals how police and the CPS colluded to to keep secret an undercover operation.



					undercoverresearch.net
				




He's fucking toxic.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2020)

Here is the timetable. Those who want to be registered supporters will need to cough up £25:

*Timetable for Labour leadership contest*
Here are the details of the timetable for the Labour leadership election decided by the NEC.
*Tuesday 7 January:* Nominations open from MPs and MEPs.
*Monday 13 January:* Nominations from MPs and MEPs close at 2.30pm.
*Tuesday 14 January:* Registered supporters applications open at 5pm.
*Thursday 16 January:* Registered supporters’ applications close at 5pm.
*Wednesday 15 January:* Second stage of nominations from constituency Labour parties and affiliates opens.
*Monday 20 January:* Freeze date for eligibility for new members and affiliated supporters. Closes at 5pm.
*Friday 14 February:* Close of CLP and affiliate nominations.
*Friday 21 February:* Ballot opens.
*Thursday 2 April:* Ballot closes at 12pm.
*Saturday 4 April:* Special conference to announce results.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I am exactly saying it was the brexit policy that lost it for them tbf. And it was.
> 
> I really can't get my head around anybody looking at the seats held and the seats lost, and then adding in 2017 to mix, and coming to any other conclusion. I mean I fully get why the remain second ref revoke types are doing it, for political convenience, I just don't understand why anybody else is giving it the time of day.


Do you think if Labour was leave it would have won?.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 6, 2020)

While I'm thinking about Lavery actually what an actual muppet taking that NUM money. I suppose at the time he never dreamed he'd even be in the conversation to be senior figure in the Labour leadership.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think if Labour was leave it would have won?.



Won't speak for PT but yes they would have. People like you have put the Tories in power. People like me are waiting for an apology.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Won't speak for PT but yes they would have. People like you have put the Tories in power. People like me are waiting for an apology.


i'm still waiting for my packed lunch & £30 from j18


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Here is the timetable. Those who want to be registered supporters will need to cough up £25:
> 
> *Timetable for Labour leadership contest*
> Here are the details of the timetable for the Labour leadership election decided by the NEC.
> ...


they're looking for better heeled entryists i hear


----------



## JimW (Jan 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> they're looking for better heeled entryists i hear


Yes, can see a rush of working class people on a budget signing up right now...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2020)

I don't agree with all of SpackleFrog post above. But, in respect of highlighting the current position of Starmer, Phillips and (to a lesser extent) RLB its bang on the money.

The supreme irony of course is that as more and more research finds that the underlying and propulsive forces driving the working class leave vote were economic stagnation, peripheralization and mistrust the more Labour leadership hopefuls confirm to those voters that their instincts about the political class were absolutely correct.

That a vote for Brexit became popularly understood as a free hit at the political class and their allies held responsible for these conditions continues to be a starkly obvious fact that none of the leadership hopefuls seem to have fully grasped. Ironically Rayner, who isn't standing for Leader, came closest to engaging with this in her speech today.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2020)

JimW said:


> Yes, can see a rush of working class people on a budget signing up right now...



£25 to vote for Jess Phillips to save the working class. 

A snip at the price.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 6, 2020)

At least when Starmer wins that should put an end to all the drivel I've been reading on fb from lapsed-anarchists-turned-corbynites telling the world and his mum about how Labour are the progressive force we've been waiting for all these years. Normal service of tory policies with 20% less evil will be resumed.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Won't speak for PT but yes they would have. People like you have put the Tories in power. People like me are waiting for an apology.


Are you serious?. The Tories have been a mess countless times over the past few years and your man Corbyn failed to even lay a glove on them. Labour are a joke to most people because of the far left. Stick to ranting about Thatcher and Zionists outside the tube station.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you serious?. The Tories have been a mess countless times over the past few years and your man Corbyn failed to even lay a glove on them. Labour are a joke to most people because of the far left. Stick to ranting about Thatcher and Zionists outside the tube station.



Corbyn isn't 'my' man. And I don't do anything outside the tube station, much less rant about Thatcher and Zionists. London isn't the centre of the universe. 

In 2017 Labour did well, under Corbyn. In 2019 Corbyn bottled it and decided that it was important to placate people like you by abandoning the Labour commitment to leave the EU. That undermined the entire manifesto, because it was a signal that under a Labour govt the Brexit saga would roll on and on. 

It's more complex than just Brexit, of course, but his utter failure to stand up to the demands for Labour to become a Remain party symbolises what was wrong with the Corbyn project. Not once did he ever truly and clearly take on the Labour right politically. If Labour are a joke it has fuck all to do with the 'far left' and everything to do with that. That is why Labour lost. You can spin it any way you like but material reality tells us what went wrong. 

I've noted your attempt to insinuate that I am probably anti semitic by the way, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. For the record, I am not personally a fan of even using the word 'zionist' - not that that would matter to you. I note this and add it to the catalogue of evidence that as well as being a severely intellectually challenged shut in who thinks purely in lazy stereotypes, you are a nasty little worm.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2020)

On the defining economic, cultural and political issue of the last 40 years Labour ended up with a position of a) remain part of the EU neo-liberal structure or b) beg the EU for a deal that replicated a) in the closest manner possible.

People aren’t stupid. The ‘radical’ transformation promised by the manifesto was always relative to the position adopted on the key issue of the election


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> £25 to vote for Jess Phillips to save the working class.
> 
> A snip at the price.


Just £1 cheaper than the Party's 'reduced' membership rate. But, if an 18 year old or student wanted to vote for the Leader as a supporter, there appears to be no £3 option as there is with membership. Seems a little discriminatory?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> £25 to vote for Jess Phillips to save the working class.
> 
> A snip at the price.


Not just any labour leadership candidate, she is a Marks and Spencer labour leadership candidate


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2020)

Guardian's infographic...so may well be wrong.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think if Labour was leave it would have won?.



Dunno if it would have won. Might have matched '17 results. Defo wouldn't have got smashed in the constituencies it lost


----------



## two sheds (Jan 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Dunno if it would have won. Might have matched '17 results. Defo wouldn't have got smashed in the constituencies it lost



Not sure how we'd tell. If 50% wanted leave and 50% wanted remain and it _was_ about Brexit, then Labour would have been fighting it out with the tories for the 50% leave, with the 50% remain severely tempted by LibDems and Greens. Not that they'd have voted for them but that would presumably have eaten into the Labour vote.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 6, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Corbyn isn't 'my' man. And I don't do anything outside the tube station, much less rant about Thatcher and Zionists. London isn't the centre of the universe.
> 
> In 2017 Labour did well, under Corbyn. In 2019 Corbyn bottled it and decided that it was important to placate people like you by abandoning the Labour commitment to leave the EU. That undermined the entire manifesto, because it was a signal that under a Labour govt the Brexit saga would roll on and on.
> 
> ...


I didn’t mean you personally were anti-semitic, so apologies for that. I did mean that it was the type of person attracted to Labour under Corbyn and given the green light by his wavering on the issue and that did damage Labour politically.
The leadership group around Corbyn is far left and they and him were responsible for the muddled messages in the manifesto and the wastes of space like Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
The next leader needs to purge them like Kinnock.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I didn’t mean you personally were anti-semitic, so apologies for that.



Just to like that quote. If you had it would have been a nasty pile of bollocks.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2020)

Muddled message is the new line isn't it. Not that a second referendum was a fucking lead balloon, not that they were dickheads for spending three years pushing a line that was deeply unpopular not just with everybody who voted leave but with a massive chunk of people who voted remain. Muddled. Fuck off


----------



## two sheds (Jan 6, 2020)

What sort of leave could they have pushed though at the election? Pretend they wanted a 'no deal' with the hope they could not tell anyone but renegotiate a proper deal if they got in? Or 'renegotiate  leave' deal, which would still leave them open to accusations of indecision and Johnson with his 'Do it now' Brexit?

I'm not convinced they had a good option.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The next leader needs to purge them like Kinnock.



No, no, no. It’s not called a purge when you lot do it. You expel. Or _democratise._

Always thought it was a shame Kinnock wasn’t purged. We could all have been spared that horrific Sheffield performance that’s burned in our heads.


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Muddled message is the new line isn't it. Not that a second referendum was a fucking lead balloon, not that they were dickheads for spending three years pushing a line that was deeply unpopular not just with everybody who voted leave but with a massive chunk of people who voted remain. Muddled. Fuck off



One of the things I found even more annoying than his gesticulation was Kier Stamer''s line yesterday "rightly or wrongly' the election result blew away calls for a second referendum.  

It must be deeply frustrating , the electorate keep getting these things wrong


----------



## kenny g (Jan 6, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> that horrific Sheffield performance that’s burned in our heads.


We're alright!


----------



## kenny g (Jan 6, 2020)

Worth quoting from that speech: "They want a Britain that is whole and fair and free. Free of fear. They want, in order to fill that, a Government with a sense of duty towards all, towards all of the people, not sections, not interest groups, not economic classes,   a sense of duty towards all of the people, that is a Labour government."


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 6, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I'm not convinced they had a good option.



to some extent, likewise, but can't help thinking that something like 'get brexit right' would at least have been worth a try.

although probably not acceptable to the remain centrists in the parliamentary party


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2020)

RLB is standing, and has issued this:



Very lightweight in terms of ideas and identifies a lack of narrative and promptly fails to offer one. No mention of Brexit. However, the dog whistle will reach the intended ears.


----------



## Sue (Jan 6, 2020)

God but I'm so bored of this. And another three months to go. FFS.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 6, 2020)

Sue said:


> God but I'm so bored of this. And another three months to go. FFS.



followed by the leadership challenge after the local elections in may


----------



## two sheds (Jan 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah, probably actually. He's the only possible candidate who actually has said anything semi worhwhile about the referendum and he's a cut above the rest politically, not that that says much. Ex Militant too I think or at least very close to them back in the day. But he probably won't stand and even if he does RLB will nuke him over the money he took from the NUM. Which will mean RLB will spend a chunk of the leadership campaign talking about trade union corruption. Joy/Great start.



to be followed by the Sun, the Mail, the Sunday Mail, the Express, the Sunday Express, the Times, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> RLB is standing, and has issued this:
> 
> 
> 
> Very lightweight in terms of ideas and identifies a lack of narrative and promptly fails to offer one. No mention of Brexit. However, the dog whistle will reach the intended ears.





Maybe it's too early in the morning** , but I did read that, and .... what dog whistle? 

**back to work today


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 7, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Maybe it's too early in the morning** , but I did read that, and .... what dog whistle?
> 
> **back to work today



RLBs pitch seems to be ‘one more heave comrades’. It’s reminiscent of an SWP paper sale analysis after only 3 copies were sold.

If she really thinks that all Labour needs to do to win next time is to improve its comms she’s deluded.

But, I suspect it’s precisely what many in the LP want to hear and have been waiting to hear.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> RLBs pitch seems to be ‘one more heave comrades’. It’s reminiscent of an SWP paper sale analysis after only 3 copies were sold.


It doesn’t say ‘one more push’ at all.  That’s just nonsense. It explicitly says ‘We have a mountain to climb’

 I agree it’s too weak, but let’s not just make shite up.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 7, 2020)

belboid said:


> It doesn’t say ‘one more push’ at all.  That’s just nonsense. It explicitly says ‘We have a mountain to climb’
> 
> I agree it’s too weak, but let’s not just make shite up.



“It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme”


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> “It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme”


To me, that reads like she's saying "don't ditch the socialist elements of our programme and swing towards the centre" especially when read alongside her other comments. 

She may not be saying exactly what you or I might like her to say at this point, but let's give her a chance before slating her completely.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> “It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme”


Which is a fucking long way from ‘one more push’ 

even that bit says ONE reason.  So there are clearly more.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> “It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme”



I’m sure many on here would agree with her.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 7, 2020)

two sheds said:


> What sort of leave could they have pushed though at the election? Pretend they wanted a 'no deal' with the hope they could not tell anyone but renegotiate a proper deal if they got in? Or 'renegotiate  leave' deal, which would still leave them open to accusations of indecision and Johnson with his 'Do it now' Brexit?
> 
> I'm not convinced they had a good option.


By the time they were in an election campaign, it was already too late.  The time to get their message straight was in the previous 2 years, not those 6 weeks.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 7, 2020)

To be fair, she does say _one of _- and from pretty much every canvasser, the two candidates and an assortment of CLP and regional officials I've spoken to, the utter technical ineptness of the campaign was a problem (both internally and externally).

Amusingly, while she was criticising the triangulation attempt of Labours brexit position on radio 4 this morning, she was frantically trying to triangulate a position on using nuclear weapons as a potential PM - I _think _she was saying yes, but she wasn't trying very hard to avoid saying it....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> “It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme”


the failure was that there wasn't a socialist programme really. it was a hodge-podge of policies labelled 'socialist' where all the dishes had got mixed together and there wasn't a coherent whole. it was 'if this is tuesday it must be free internet day', there was no structured approach to the release of policies, there was muddled focus on constituencies, it was frankly of a piece with the pisspoor response to allegations of anti-semitism - confused and confusing.


----------



## Winot (Jan 7, 2020)

maomao said:


> It was unsortable. They couldn't ignore the majority of their membership and voters who voted remain and they couldn't ignore their crucial leave vote. It was a successful wedge issue. There was no magic solution.



Other than rewinding the clock and making a progressive argument for one side or the other and persuading the electorate they were right.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 7, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> the failure was that there wasn't a socialist programme really. it was a hodge-podge of policies labelled 'socialist' where all the dishes had got mixed together and there wasn't a coherent whole. it was 'if this is tuesday it must be free internet day', there was no structured approach to the release of policies, there was muddled focus on constituencies, it was frankly of a piece with the pisspoor response to allegations of anti-semitism - confused and confusing.



The reference to a 'socialist programme' is embarrassing. It was an incoherent jumble of social democratic proposals. But leaving that aside where is the RLB narrative? What is 'Long-Baileyism'? How will the same programme, but under her leadership, fare better than under Corbyn?  

The instincts and ideas for a green industrial revolution remain good ones. But even here she doesn't flesh out how that can 're-unite Labour heartlands'. Given that she goes on to say that she has been thinking for weeks about what went wrong and how to fix it its underwhelming to put it mildly. The Tories are not the SNP of course, but if Labour learn one thing from its eviscerated state in Scotland it should be this - retaining lifelong supporters is much easier than winning them back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The reference to a 'socialist programme' is embarrassing. It was an incoherent jumble of social democratic proposals. But leaving that aside where is the RLB narrative? What is 'Long-Baileyism'? How will the same programme, but under her leadership, fare better than under Corbyn?
> 
> The instincts and ideas for a green industrial revolution remain good ones. But even here she doesn't flesh out how that can 're-unite Labour heartlands'. Given that she goes on to say that she has been thinking for weeks about what went wrong and how to fix it its underwhelming to put it mildly. The Tories are not the SNP of course, but if Labour learn one thing from its eviscerated state in Scotland it should be this - retaining lifelong supporters is much easier than winning them back.


yeh calling their manifesto a socialist programme ignores the fact - as you say - it was a) not a programme (which suggests a structure leading on to an end goal) and b) it wasn't socialist no matter how much they wanted to claim it was.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 7, 2020)

A programme would actually be a good starting point. The development of one would allow Labour to understand why is keeps losing to an incompetent, unpopular and demographically imperiled Tory Party. It will also be necessary given that Labour are unlikely to face an opposition so divided and buffeted (and which polled 14% at the Euro elections months before the GE) again.

It would allow them to properly examine social, economic and cultural change - Burgon for example proposes a 'Special Commission' focussing on lost seats in deindustrialised areas of the Midlands, North and Wales - and it would open up a space for the urgently needed debate about rebuilding non-state institutions essential for Labour to win but more importantly essential for ordinary people to achieve better lives. Working through the necessary steps to develop this type of programme could even promote a new focus outward rather than endless obsessive internal battles.

I get the sense from the statement that RLB isn't interested in any of this, and her focus is on fixing the message, framing it better and communicating it effectively.

ETA: Burgon, Rayner and Nandy all seem to have grasped, however vaguely, the need for this type of approach.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 7, 2020)

Opening innings  by Jess Phillips.  0 hit wicket.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Opening innings  by Jess Phillips.  0 hit wicket.



Not enough  for that malignant narcissist


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2020)

kebabking said:


> If you don't like getting the blame when it all turns to shit, you probably ought not to apply for the big job - he _is_ the leader you know, he effectively controls the NEC, the membership are instinctively sympathetic to him, and after the 2017 GE result he had moral and political _carte blanche _to formulate policy, the way it was articulated and by whom. So yes, he was the man at the helm, he had the controls, and he had enough time in office to fashion the party and its message in whatever way he saw fit - so yes, it's his shit sandwich.



I prefer to the blame the electorate. It’s those cunts that chose the Boris regime and are 100% to blame for their deeply backward and degenerate voting decisions.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Not enough  for that malignant narcissist



seeing Suzanne Moore + Matthew 'wanker' D'Ancona claiming that calling Jess Phillips a narcissist = misogyo  was another glimpse into the virtual 7th circle yday


----------



## kebabking (Jan 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I prefer to the blame the electorate. It’s those cunts that chose the Boris regime and are 100% to blame for their deeply backward and degenerate voting decisions.



#WinningFriendsAndInfluencingPeople

#HowsThatGoingForYou?

#NotReallyGraspedThisPoliticsThing


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2020)

I see lavery has ruled out standing and is backing RLB now. So thats starmer, nandy, philips and RLB announced. And lewis. Cup runneth over.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2020)

kebabking said:


> #WinningFriendsAndInfluencingPeople
> 
> #HowsThatGoingForYou?
> 
> #NotReallyGraspedThisPoliticsThing



I’m a  pseudonymous commenter on an internet message board, not a politician. I don’t care about pandering to the sort of cretins who voted for the Boris regime. gladly in 5 years time a lot of them will be rotting in hell where they belong.


----------



## LDC (Jan 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I’m a  pseudonymous commenter on an internet message board, not a politician. I don’t care about pandering to the sort of cretins who voted for the Boris regime. gladly in 5 years time a lot of them will be rotting in hell where they belong.



I'm assuming this like your other post above it is trying to be funny in some way?


----------



## Whagwan (Jan 7, 2020)

cantsin said:


> seeing Suzanne Moore + Matthew 'wanker' D'Ancona claiming that calling Jess Phillips a narcissist = misogyo  was another glimpse into the virtual 7th circle yday



According to Ayesha "Controls on Immigration" Hazarika it's actually anti-semitic to criticise Jess Phillips.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I’m a  pseudonymous commenter on an internet message board, not a politician. I don’t care about pandering to the sort of cretins who voted for the Boris regime.



Are you RLB?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Very lightweight in terms of ideas and identifies a lack of narrative and promptly fails to offer one. No mention of Brexit. However, the dog whistle will reach the intended ears.


I have no skin in the game, but her narrative is clearly go hard on the Green New Deal, and constitutional/democratic reform to give people more power. That second bit is a bit vague, and seems like she doesn't want to risk big ideas like regional devolution, but it is a narrative.

What's lacking for me is a notion of the importance of grassroots movement-building - I think we kind of agree on that.

I've not been inspired by any of the leaders so far, but I wouldn't mistake myself for their target market either, being neither in the Labour Party nor a historical Labour voter.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jan 7, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I've not been inspired by any of the leaders so far, but I wouldn't mistake myself for their target market either, being neither in the Labour Party nor a historical Labour voter.


...and heaven forbid that they would try to appeal to anyone new


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2020)

cantsin said:


> seeing Suzanne Moore + Matthew 'wanker' D'Ancona claiming that calling Jess Phillips a narcissist = misogyo  was another glimpse into the virtual 7th circle yday


_shakes head & walks away_


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2020)

No matter which candidate Labour put forward none of them will be able to beat Boris because the cretinous British public love Boris. He’s been the most popular politician for at least over a decade despite having no talent whatsoever. The electorate just love racism, lies and bullshit nationalism. That’s what we’ll get for at least a decade.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 7, 2020)

Whagwan said:


> According to Ayesha "Controls on Immigration" Hazarika it's actually anti-semitic to criticise Jess Phillips.



f*ck yes, how cld I forget that one .... and her media bookings diary is No doubt still bulging for q1 /2

HOW THE F*CK IS IT LIKE THIS ?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 7, 2020)

So, Long-Bailey now states that she will push the button if she is to be PM

Can't provide link because of ad blocker (it's an audio clip in the Independent)


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 7, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> So, Long-Bailey now states that she will push the button if she is to be PM
> 
> Can't provide link because of ad blocker (it's an audio clip in the Independent)


To be honest I don't give a fuck what politicians say about this. All I can do is hope she's lying. If she wouldn't push the button I would expect her to lie, because parliamentary politics is a dirty fucking game and that's not the battle to fight right now.


----------



## LDC (Jan 7, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> So, Long-Bailey now states that she will push the button if she is to be PM
> 
> Can't provide link because of ad blocker (it's an audio clip in the Independent)



TBH if you're going to go for PM then there's not much choice, as to say anything but 'yes' with maybe a short caveat is an attempt at political suicide.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 7, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> TBH if you're going to go for PM then there's not much choice, as to say anything but 'yes' with maybe a short caveat is an attempt at political suicide.


Might as well get the entire Labour Party to affiliate to the Tories and have done with it.


----------



## LDC (Jan 7, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Might as well get the entire Labour Party to affiliate to the Tories and have done with it.



No. But as we saw with Corbyn it's then going to be a stick you get beaten with for the rest of your campaign. Cross your fingers behind your back or something if you want, but if you engage in the parliamentary politics as it currently is it's a strategic mistake to do anything else.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 7, 2020)

it doesn't matter - either politically or strategically - whether you would or not: all that matters is whether people, your own electorate or Vlad in his kimono at 3am, believe that you would, or that theres a good chance you would.

if 80% of the population are dead and the cities look like the surface of the sun it no longer matters whether you would retaliate or not, its too late at that stage - all that matters is that the other bloke, when he's seriously considering action that could lead to escalation into a nuclear exchange, thinks there's a good enough chance that you will retaliate that the game isn't worth the candle.

if RLB had just said 'yes, if neccesary, i'll use nukes' she'd have ended the issue. it doesn't mater whether she would or not. the 'whats your definition of neccesary?' question is easily answered by 'i'm not going to tell you - just don't push me..' which can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. end of question, and a very definate end to the _Continuity Corbyn Candidate_ stuff....

but no, politicians must _waffle_...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 7, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I didn’t mean you personally were anti-semitic, so apologies for that. I did mean that it was the type of person attracted to Labour under Corbyn and given the green light by his wavering on the issue and that did damage Labour politically.
> The leadership group around Corbyn is far left and they and him were responsible for the muddled messages in the manifesto and the wastes of space like Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
> The next leader needs to purge them like Kinnock.



Thank you for the apology. If you consider those around Corbyn far left I'm not sure you would make of me - I think Kinnock broke the Labour Party by expelling the Militant and other Socialists and I don't think Corbyn has done anywhere near enough to fix that. 

If you think purging those deemed too radical and moving to the centre ground will help the Labour Party's electoral performances I'm afraid you're about as wrong as it is possible to be.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 7, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No. But as we saw with Corbyn it's then going to be a stick you get beaten with for the rest of your campaign. Cross your fingers behind your back or something if you want, but if you engage in the parliamentary politics as it currently is it's a strategic mistake to do anything else.


Or you could go on the attack, and call out the ignorant, callous, war-mongering, immoral bastards at the top, on all sides. At least then people will know where you stand, and you might well discover that most people would actually respect your position. You could also point out, forcefully, that being allied with nuclear Trump and his ilk doesn’t make anyone safer. Or better-off. Say it loud, i’m anti-nuclear and I’m proud.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Or you could go on the attack, and call out the ignorant, callous, war-mongering, immoral bastards at the top, on all sides. At least then people will know where you stand, and you might well discover that most people would actually respect your position. You could also point out, forcefully, that being allied with nuclear Trump and his ilk doesn’t make anyone safer. Or better-off. Say it loud, i’m anti-nuclear and I’m proud.



I think Lynn’s point is that the electorate has been so brainwashed by racist, militaristic propaganda that any policy position short of being pro-nuclear holocaust won’t go down well with them.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think Lynn’s point is that the electorate has been so brainwashed by racist, militaristic propaganda that any policy position short of being pro-nuclear holocaust won’t go down well with them.


I’m not so sure that’s right. Most people surveyed over the years are not gung-ho about nuclear weapons at all. The Tory shires may be, but may not be so when they are really informed about how much it all costs. And that’s when we have never had a Labour Party unequivocally unilateralist. Not many people go to bed at night these days worried about nuclear oblivion at the hands if those horrid Ruskies. They’re more worried about Trump, if anything.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 7, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> the failure was that there wasn't a socialist programme really. it was a hodge-podge of policies labelled 'socialist' where all the dishes had got mixed together and there wasn't a coherent whole. it was 'if this is tuesday it must be free internet day', there was no structured approach to the release of policies, there was muddled focus on constituencies, it was frankly of a piece with the pisspoor response to allegations of anti-semitism - confused and confusing.



I wonder what happened there because iirc McDonnell’s previous speech to conference hung together pretty well.


----------



## LDC (Jan 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think Lynn’s point is that the electorate has been so brainwashed by racist, militaristic propaganda that any policy position short of being pro-nuclear holocaust won’t go down well with them.



From your posts it seems that it's you that has such contempt for people?


----------



## LDC (Jan 7, 2020)

It's less what the electorate are for or against re: nuclear weapons, and more that any anti-nuke stance allows a huge amount of space to then be taken up with noise around security/safety of the country etc etc. Look what happened to Corbyn around this stuff if you doubt me, and it hurt him especially hard as he had plenty of other stuff in his background that enabled the story to have legs.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 7, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It's less what the electorate are for or against re: nuclear weapons, and more that any anti-nuke stance allows a huge amount of space to then be taken up with noise around security/safety of the country etc etc. Look what happened to Corbyn around this stuff if you doubt me, and it hurt him especially hard as he had plenty of other stuff in his background that enabled the story to have legs.



Indeed - I take it far more as being shorthand/talismanic than being specific - it's saying, or not, _i will go to any lengths to protect you._

its quite possible that someone without Corbyns' _baggage _could have a discussion about whether nukes provide for better defence than conventional systems, or other political/diplomatic/economic systems, but they'd need something of a clean sheet, and for it to be fairly clear in the public/media mind that it was a technical discussion, not some moral crusade by a hippy/Hamas supporter.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> From your posts it seems that it's you that has such contempt for people?



no, only Tory voters - they are the enemy of humanity.


----------



## LDC (Jan 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> no, only Tory voters - they are the enemy of humanity.



That must be a depressingly dark place you inhabit politically (and very smug and superior for you personally) when you can write so many people off as the enemy of humanity on that one thing. I'll let all those Tory voters that I work with in the NHS know they're enemies of humanity next time I'm in work.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 7, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That must be a depressingly dark place you inhabit politically (and very smug and superior for you personally) when you can write so many people off as the enemy of humanity on one thing. I'll let all those Tory voters that I work with in the NHS they're enemies of humanity next time I'm in work.



I can’t be arsed to engage with his gibberish. If your idea of politics is to reductively write off  13,905,520 people then there’s no hope for you


----------



## Cerv (Jan 7, 2020)

looking at the timeline that’s been announced this week, why is it so late? 
with local elections only one month later, I’d have thought that they’d want the new leadership to be in place earlier with a bit more time to get things going for the campaign.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 7, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you serious?. The Tories have been a mess countless times over the past few years and your man Corbyn failed to even lay a glove on them. Labour are a joke to most people because of the far left. Stick to ranting about Thatcher and Zionists outside the tube station.


'
oh purlease, what's 'ranting about Thatcher and Zionists outside the tube station' got to do with anything here, have you not been outside since the 80's ?

( as for your ' next leader needs to purge the left' comment, feel freeget out from behind yr / yr mums keyboard, join the Party, and get this 'purge' going, bring it the f*ck on )


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 7, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> So, Long-Bailey now states that she will push the button if she is to be PM
> 
> Can't provide link because of ad blocker (it's an audio clip in the Independent)




I heard her being interviewed this morning on the Today Programme. 

From what I'm remember the interview went like this.

Interviewer asked her if she was patriotic and therefore would be prepared to push the button for nuclear missiles launch

This apparently for the Today Programme interviewer was how to measure if a candidate seeking to be a future PM  is "patriotic".

In other words one is proper patriot if one is prepared to support Mutually Assured Destruction. 

That MAD is the litmus test for " patriotism" is disgusting imo. 

I feel for what imo is decent person like RLB when faced with this bollox. You can't win. 

As much as Corbyn is criticised here any person mildly left is going to get a hard time in a country like this if they are putting themselves for leader of Labour party. That is what felt when I heard the interview.

Personally when I heard the Today interviewer questioning a left of centre politician in this way I wonder why Boris and his lot have such a problem with the Today programme.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 7, 2020)

I'm baffled. As someone who grew up in a time when MAD was seriously and scarily an issue I'm baffled that anyone takes it seriously now, or regards it as some kind of shibboleth to measure 'patriotism' - whatever that is. Actually, I reckon 'patriotism', whatever that is, requires much closer scrutiny than irrelevant nuke stuff. Frex, WTF is 'progressive patriotism'?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 7, 2020)

bluescreen said:


> WTF is 'progressive patriotism'?


I'm guessing that it's being patriotically proud of things like the NHS and other 'progressive' things, as if progressive things aren't to be found anywhere else..


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> A programme would actually be a good starting point. The development of one would allow Labour to understand why is keeps losing to an incompetent, unpopular and demographically imperiled Tory Party. It will also be necessary given that Labour are unlikely to face an opposition so divided and buffeted (and which polled 14% at the Euro elections months before the GE) again.
> 
> It would allow them to properly examine social, economic and cultural change - Burgon for example proposes a 'Special Commission' focussing on lost seats in deindustrialised areas of the Midlands, North and Wales - and it would open up a space for the urgently needed debate about rebuilding non-state institutions essential for Labour to win but more importantly essential for ordinary people to achieve better lives. Working through the necessary steps to develop this type of programme could even promote a new focus outward rather than endless obsessive internal battles.
> 
> ...


Did you actually bother reading the whole piece?

“We can’t wait five years to effect change in people’s lives. We must begin organising in communities now, and resist the Tories every step of the way — in parliament, on the streets, and in our workplaces. As leader, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you – in every campaign against Tory cuts, with every minority community and all migrants against Johnson’s hateful agenda, and with trade unions in every struggle to protect workers’ rights.”

It’s an opening piece, not an entire manifesto, but it is addressing all the things you are complaining about.  Why deliberately misrepresenting it/her?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 7, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Indeed - I take it far more as being shorthand/talismanic than being specific - it's saying, or not, _i will go to any lengths to protect you._
> 
> its quite possible that someone without Corbyns' _baggage _could have a discussion about whether nukes provide for better defence than conventional systems, or other political/diplomatic/economic systems, but they'd need something of a clean sheet, and for it to be fairly clear in the public/media mind that it was a technical discussion, not some moral crusade by a hippy/Hamas supporter.



Can I clarify?

Your not actually saying someone opposing nukes is a Hamas supporter?

On Technical discussion. Not everyone is a pacifist. But morality does come into violent conflict. Its seen as immoral to use say chemical weapons. This does not make one a "hippy".


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 7, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> I'm guessing that it's being patriotically proud of things like the NHS and other 'progressive' things, as if progressive things aren't to be found anywhere else..


I hope so. It would be good to know.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 7, 2020)

belboid said:


> Did you actually bother reading the whole piece?
> 
> It’s an opening piece, not an entire manifesto, but it is addressing all the things you are complaining about.  Why deliberately misrepresenting it/her?



I did read it. I have made two criticisms. Firstly, her reference to the ‘socialist programme’. There isn’t one. Secondly, ‘standing beside’ and supporting is not the same as a worked out plan to systematically direct the Party’s membership and resources into _rebuilding _and active work to _assist in the strengthening _of non state institutions. I want to vote for a candidate who is serious about the work.

Your point about it being an opening piece is fair, but so is commenting on it. There I s no misrepresentation here


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 7, 2020)

A problem with the Labour party ( from what I've seen in Lambeth) is that once one is in it occupies all ones time.

A couple of really good community activists I know in Lambeth joined Labour party due to Corbyn.

I can fully understand. 

Being involved in local community groups its frustrating when it feels like banging head against the wall of the New Labour adminstration in Lambeth. 

Corbyn meant that people joined local Labour party to try to change the structures that meant community minded people were no longer banging there heads against the wall. But helping to make policy and run services in a supportive and colaborative way with the local Labour administration. A rational imo reaction to years of community work where the New Labour adminstration treat one with little more than bare toleration at times contempt.

But it meant that my two friends ended up spending all their time in local Labour party meetings opposing the entrenched New Labour lot. With therefore no time for community issues. 

Its a real problem. To make the Labour  party relevant to ordinary locals needs such a total transformation of the party Im sadly feel it might not happen. Despite the best efforts of my friends. 

The leadership campaign is not going to go into the local issues. Its going to be about whether a candidate is "patriotic".


----------



## kebabking (Jan 7, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> ...The leadership campaign is not going to go into the local issues. Its going to be about whether a candidate is "patriotic".



It's pretty obviously going to be about national issues, given that it's a national position. I rather doubt you'd be interested in the candidates views on the B4194, train services from Worcester Parkway and Wychavons' Local Housing Plan.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 7, 2020)

kebabking said:


> It's pretty obviously going to be about national issues, given that it's a national position. I rather doubt you'd be interested in the candidates views on the B4194, train services from Worcester Parkway and Wychavons' Local Housing Plan.



I thought a major criticism was that the Labour party was distant from local bread and butter concerns?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2020)

Cerv said:


> looking at the timeline that’s been announced this week, why is it so late?
> with local elections only one month later, I’d have thought that they’d want the new leadership to be in place earlier with a bit more time to get things going for the campaign.


Good point.
& In London the Mayoral & GLA elections will take place just one month after the announcement of the new leader. Bad enough, but even worse when you consider that Labour’s GLA constituency candidates are still not yet selected, having been delayed for umpteen reasons inc. the GE. As far as I can tell, the tories in my constituency (Croydon & Sutton) had their candidate in place back in March 2019,giving them plenty of time to organise and campaign.

Maybe what they’re saying about the LP being a shambles internally explains all this?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 7, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> To make the Labour party relevant to ordinary locals needs such a total transformation of the party Im sadly feel it might not happen. Despite the best efforts of my friends.



ultimately, the 'new labour' / blairite / progress types have had it their way since the mid 90s.  they mostly seem determined to hang on to what power they have got - the brief arc of TInGe nationally wasn't really great, and while a few councillors have defected to the limp dems or whatever, most have stayed put.

the party structure is, as far as i can tell, not one where large swathes of the party can be 'purged' that easily, and there's the old argument about having them inside the tent pissing out.

although quite frankly a lot of them seem to have been inside the tent and pissing all over the place since corbyn was elected leader.



Gramsci said:


> I thought a major criticism was that the Labour party was distant from local bread and butter concerns?



i think it can be, but not sure anyone is going to win a national party leadership contest by getting too deeply in to specific local things.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 7, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> ultimately, the 'new labour' / blairite / progress types have had it their way since the mid 90s.  they mostly seem determined to hang on to what power they have got - the brief arc of TInGe nationally wasn't really great, and while a few councillors have defected to the limp dems or whatever, most have stayed put.
> 
> the party structure is, as far as i can tell, not one where large swathes of the party can be 'purged' that easily, and there's the old argument about having them inside the tent pissing out.
> 
> ...



What I'm saying is that a major criticism of the Labour party is that it has lost touch with what should be its natural constituency. 

Not saying a national leadership should know all about specific things in small areas.

But that a criticism of the party is that its not been seen to be actively involved in local communities. Building up support in this way. 

I'm in inner London but , forgive me If I'm wrong , but was that not a major reason given for the gradual loss of support for Labour party up North?

My own experience of inner London is that the Labour vote held up but that the local Blairite New Labour Council isn't liked in general.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 7, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> But that a criticism of the party is that its not been seen to be actively involved in local communities. Building up support in this way.
> 
> I'm in inner London but , forgive me If I'm wrong , but was that not a major reason given for the gradual loss of support for Labour party up North?



i'm not all that sure it ever was in a big way.  through trade unions yes, but local communities - dunno.  obviously will vary from one place to another.

locally here (labour party sometimes distant second to the tories in general elections, now have about 3 local councillors which they consider to be quite a big achievement) they do occasional things like campaigning things aimed at train commuters, going out in to the community on organised litter picking things which always strikes me as a bit hmm - yes the local tory council is fairly crap at these things, but feels too close to scabbing for comfort where i'm sitting.


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I heard her being interviewed this morning on the Today Programme.
> 
> From what I'm remember the interview went like this.
> 
> ...



I have never heard ANYONE who wants to be PM answer that question in a satisfactory manner..  The correct answer is (IMO) "I've put a lot of thought into  my letter to the submarine Commander.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 8, 2020)

gosub said:


> I have never heard ANYONE who wants to be PM answer that question in a satisfactory manner..  The correct answer is (IMO) "I've put a lot of thought into  my letter to the submarine Commander.



_Nuclear weapons are part of this country’s arsenal and as such, if I were PM, I cannot rule out their use. But we have not needed to use them in the 70 or so years we have had them and every year as our knowledge of the fragile nature of the environment becomes more apparent and our commitment to human rights across the world greater, the circumstances in which they could be used become ever more extreme and unlikely. We would be better off asking whether they represent the best way of defending our country rather than posing this yes/no question as a proxy. If I become Prime Minister this is a matter Parliament will consider as a priority._


----------



## chilango (Jan 8, 2020)

The correct answer is to punch the questioner in the face.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> _Nuclear weapons are part of this country’s arsenal and as such, if I were PM, I cannot rule out their use. But we have not needed to use them in the 70 or so years we have had them and every year as our knowledge of the fragile nature of the environment becomes more apparent and our commitment to human rights across the world greater, the circumstances in which they could be used become ever more extreme and unlikely. We would be better off asking whether they represent the best way of defending our country rather than posing this yes/no question as a proxy. If I become Prime Minister this is a matter Parliament will consider as a priority._



"So, stop being evasive and just answer the question. Would you use them?"

<repeated ad infinitum until you give the answer they want which is "yes"

or "no" in which case they've got you with the mad hippy peacenik label>


----------



## kebabking (Jan 8, 2020)

two sheds said:


> "So, stop being evasive and just answer the question. Would you use them?"
> 
> <repeated ad infinitum until you give the answer they want which is "yes"
> 
> or "no" in which case they've got you with the mad hippy peacenik label>



Nah, there's a way that works - you simply go on the attack: you say '_i'm sorry Martha, but I am simply not prepared to discuss with you - and through you anyone who might wish us harm - the most sensitive details of the United Kingdom's future nuclear weapons posture'._

It helps however if you've not spent your life on anti-nuclear demo's, otherwise the ambiguity never really sticks.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 8, 2020)

Would you go round and burn somebody's house down with their family inside, well would you would you. Would you salt the earth, would you.

Mental really isn't it. I mean I agree that it's about the possible and not a battle worth fighting from opposition and all that, but it's still fucking mental


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2020)

chilango said:


> The correct answer is to punch the questioner in the face.



Or simply nuke them.


----------



## andysays (Jan 8, 2020)

This is an interesting development...

Labour leadership: Unison endorses Sir Keir Starmer


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> A problem with the Labour party ( from what I've seen in Lambeth) is that once one is in it occupies all ones time.


so many jobs are like that too


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Would you go round and burn somebody's house down with their family inside, well would you would you.


i wouldn't rule it out in all circumstances.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 8, 2020)

Hc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> View attachment 195279.   Fill in you lr comment below etc


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 8, 2020)

Grrr not used to new format.


Fuckin human scum pearson


----------



## treelover (Jan 8, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> HcView attachment 195282




Nasty piece of work, Pearson.


----------



## treelover (Jan 8, 2020)

Did any of the candidates mention the welfare system during their stump speech, Lisa has on a number of occasions.


----------



## FiFi (Jan 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> _Nuclear weapons are part of this country’s arsenal and as such, if I were PM, I cannot rule out their use. But we have not needed to use them in the 70 or so years we have had them and every year as our knowledge of the fragile nature of the environment becomes more apparent and our commitment to human rights across the world greater, the circumstances in which they could be used become ever more extreme and unlikely. We would be better off asking whether they represent the best way of defending our country rather than posing this yes/no question as a proxy. If I become Prime Minister this is a matter Parliament will consider as a priority._


Beautiful. But it's not the "soundbite answer" the Today Programme seems to demand.


----------



## FiFi (Jan 8, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Nah, there's a way that works - you simply go on the attack: you say '_i'm sorry Martha, but I am simply not prepared to discuss with you - and through you anyone who might wish us harm - the most sensitive details of the United Kingdom's future nuclear weapons posture'._
> 
> *It helps however if you've not spent your life on anti-nuclear demo's, otherwise the ambiguity never really sticks.*


I'd better not stand for the Leadership then!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2020)

andysays said:


> This is an interesting development...
> 
> Labour leadership: Unison endorses Sir Keir Starmer



BBC radio featuring this story prominently, in case anyone was wondering who the establishment's pick for Labour leader is.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 8, 2020)

FiFi said:


> I'd better not stand for the Leadership then!



Stand for the leadership all you like, but you're probably wasting your time trying to be PM...


----------



## FiFi (Jan 8, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Stand for the leadership all you like, but you're probably wasting your time trying to be PM...


Quite. My CND past would let me down!


----------



## treelover (Jan 8, 2020)

Leadership frontrunners both appoint pro-Corbyn figures to campaign teams – LabourList
					

Both frontrunners in Labour's leadership race – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer – have appointed key Corbynite figures to senior positions in their campaign teams.…




					labourlist.org
				




LB appoints Lansmann as campaign director, Mat Cousins, Starmer more wider, Kat Fletcher(wasn't shein Workers Liberty once) and Simon Fletcher key Corbyn aides, but also Kendalls former L/S Bid organiser, Morgan McSweeney.

wondering who Lisa is appointing.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 8, 2020)

treelover said:


> Leadership frontrunners both appoint pro-Corbyn figures to campaign teams – LabourList
> 
> 
> Both frontrunners in Labour's leadership race – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer – have appointed key Corbynite figures to senior positions in their campaign teams.…
> ...



Can you not refer to these people by their first names? You don't know them, they aren't your friends, and it speaks of a somewhat unhealthy attachment to people you ought (because they are politicians) to maintain a detached scepticism towards.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2020)

Barry Gardiner has thrown his hat in the ring.









						Exclusive: Barry Gardiner Preparing To Run For Labour Leader In Shock Late Entry
					

Shadow international trade secretary and Corbyn loyalist has begun looking for a campaign team, HuffPost UK understands.




					www.huffingtonpost.co.uk


----------



## Supine (Jan 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> BBC radio featuring this story prominently, in case anyone was wondering who the establishment's pick for Labour leader is.



Unison are the establishment?


----------



## Supine (Jan 8, 2020)

MrSki said:


> Barry Gardiner has thrown his hat in the ring.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2020)

MrSki said:


> Barry Gardiner has thrown his hat in the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What kind of waste of time is that?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 8, 2020)

Supine said:


> Unison are the establishment?


If they are supporting that creep Starmer the leadership certainly are. Disgraceful.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 8, 2020)

MrSki said:


> Barry Gardiner has thrown his hat in the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Should increase the comedy value...


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 8, 2020)




----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2020)

Labour Party Leader
					

Explore the current nominations




					labour.org.uk
				



updating link of which mp’s have nominated who

Louise Haigh going for fucking Nandy


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2020)

Looks like there is some confusion as to whether Gardiner is standing or not.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 8, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> Should increase the comedy value...



Also from that link: 



> > I wish journalists including @pollytoynbee would stop claiming that I or Unite have backed anyone for Labour leader so far. To be clear, we haven’t. The decision will only be made when our executive committee meets on 24 Jan, to which candidates will be invited to make their case
> > — Len McCluskey (@LenMcCluskey) January 7, 2020


----------



## treelover (Jan 8, 2020)

sunnysidedown said:


>



I consider Guido to be quite a significant player now in UK politics, a lot of its 'exposes' seem to be shared across social media, its er, humour, too.


----------



## treelover (Jan 8, 2020)

MrSki said:


> Looks like there is some confusion as to whether Gardiner is standing or not.





Shame, Goodall has been brilliant on sky new with its LINE series of packages across the UK, poverty, left behind costal towns, etc.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 8, 2020)

treelover said:


> Shame, Goodall has been brilliant on sky new with its LINE series of packages across the UK, poverty, left behind costal towns, etc.


He’s using bbc editorial standards now...

Although Gardiner has now confirmed he’s “considering” standing. Is he any good? The small amount I’ve seen of him suggested that he’s a bit.... crap? And he sounds like Julius Nicholson from the thick of it!


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He’s using bbc editorial standards now...
> 
> Although Gardiner has now confirmed he’s “considering” standing. Is he any good? The small amount I’ve seen of him suggested that he’s a bit.... crap? And he sounds like Julius Nicholson from the thick of it!


He can be an effective speaker, but he’s also a bloody Modi supporter.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2020)

Every time I've seen Gardiner on TV, I've thought he was rubbish ....


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2020)

Gardiner had a great run in the 2017 election campaign, but has been almost entirely crap ever since.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 9, 2020)




----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 9, 2020)

Barry Gardiner, lol. I'd sooner vote for Barry Cryer. 

Or even Bob Cryer off The Bill.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 9, 2020)

Assuming this is a genuine RLB response good on her for seeing the humour. However the negative media she has got unlike Sir Starmer/stabber Phillips shows who threatens the status quo and who doesn’t.



sunnysidedown said:


>


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 9, 2020)

treelover said:


> Nasty piece of work, Pearson.


Thats the Allison Pearson who looks like Shrek in makeup and a wig?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 9, 2020)

skyscraper101 said:


> Barry Gardiner, lol. I'd sooner vote for Barry Cryer.
> 
> Or even Bob Cryer off The Bill.



if Barry Gardiner is the answer, what’s the question?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 9, 2020)

This shows where Labour MPs votes for leader have gone from 2015 to now.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 9, 2020)




----------



## chilango (Jan 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> if Barry Gardiner is the answer, what’s the question?


Who's that Labour bloke who's always on telly?


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> if Barry Gardiner is the answer, what’s the question?



Which MP do you think would make the best pantomime dame?


----------



## andysays (Jan 9, 2020)

gosub said:


> Which MP do you think would make the best pantomime dame?


Obligatory 'oh no he wouldn't' comment


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> if Barry Gardiner is the answer, what’s the question?



Which Labour MP has the delivery of a CBeebies presenter?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2020)

kebabking said:


> It's pretty obviously going to be about national issues, given that it's a national position. I rather doubt you'd be interested in the candidates views on the B4194, train services from Worcester Parkway and Wychavons' Local Housing Plan.



Not your sharpest take. 

One factor that isn't discussed enough about Labour's collapse in its former heartlands is that it is Labour local authorities who have been dutifully implementing Tory austerity for a decade. Ask a lot of people what they know about their local labour politicians and you might find that what they know is that their Labour council 'consulted' them on whether they should be cutting childrens centres or adult social care and then cut both anyway. As others have said, the first test of a new Labour leader will be the local elections, where, if they actually want to get some good results, it might be a good idea to address that. You don't have to know about specific areas blighted by potholes or bus routes which have disappeared but it would be nice if candidates could say something about what Labour councils should be doing if re-elected wouldn't it?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Every time I've seen Gardiner on TV, I've thought he was rubbish ....



He was. Quite possibly the worst public speaker of his generation.




belboid said:


> He can be an effective speaker, but he’s also a bloody Modi supporter.



No, he can't. Although to be fair to him he probably thinks it is his duty to congratulate anyone who wins an election in another major country/trading partner, and isn't specifically a supporter of Modi's regime.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This shows where Labour MPs votes for leader have gone from 2015 to now.



Are those figures on side percent or actual numbers? It's 10% of all MPs/MEPs to meet threshold isn't it, so at this point only Starmer


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 9, 2020)

MrSki said:


> Barry Gardiner has thrown his hat in the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If he was Leader if the Opposition  we’d have Gardiners Question time on five days a week


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> He was. Quite possibly the worst public speaker of his generation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, he is an explicit supporter.  








						Meet the British MP Who Fights for Modi
					

Modi has found a die-hard fan in British MP Barry Gardiner, who not only has invited him to the House of Commons to speak. but has defended him vigorously and passionately in front of India media.




					m.indiatimes.com


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2020)

belboid said:


> No, he is an explicit supporter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That link says it's not available to people in Europe.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2020)

Oh,odd, but I am (temporarily) in Singapore I suppose.

Here it is:

Narendra Modi is a popular man in India. Divisive, yes. Polarizing, yes. Always in news, yes. But unpopular, never. And Modi's popularity seems to have crossed oceans and reached foreign shores. Modi has found a die-hard fan in British MP Barry Gardiner, who not only has invited him to the House of Commons to speak. but has defended him vigorously and passionately in front of India media.


Gardiner is a Labour MP from Brent North who says he has had a 13 year old association with 'Narendra Bhai and counts him as a friend.He is also the chairman of Labour Friends of India. The influential Labour organisation endeavours to strengthen relations between the Labour Party and India and engage the UK-Indian Community with British politics. While extending the invitation to Gujarat CM, Gardiner had stated that people in the UK and indeed the international community would be very interested to meet and hear what Narendra Modi has to say first hand.The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Modi has been invited to speak on 'The Future of Modern India.
Modi expressed his gratitude for the invitation through Twitter.


Earlier, ending a decade-long boycott of Gujarat post 2002 communal riots, the UK government had resumed dialogue with the state last year when the British High Commissioner James Bevan met Modi and initiated discussions on a range of issues, including climate change and investment.
But Gardiner's views about Modi, which he revealed to TOI in an interview, seem to be bordering on fandom. On being asked why he was so keen on inviting Modi,Gardiner said, "Whether or not Modi goes on to become India's next prime minister, nobody can deny he is clearly one of India's most influential political actors. Hence, his view on how he wants to see India in the near future is of great interest to the UK and Europe,"
And ofcourse, when one speaks about Modi, the topic that is bound to come up is his handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots and the subsequential communal tag that got attached to his name. This has cost BJP the support of NDA allies such as Nitish Kumar led JDU, as well as become the main point of attack for the opposition in the lead up to the 2014 general elections. But it doesn't bother Gardiner a bit. On Gujarat riots, Gardiner said, "The Supreme Court has till now exonerated Modi of all charges regarding the riots, and I believe the Supreme Court. We have to access the man on his capability to govern."
So fervent is Gardiner's support of Modi, that he totally talked down two of India's famous media personalities during interviews about his decision to invite Modi. He berated them for calling Modi a controversial figure and told them to respect the Supreme Court's decision, without really answering their questions
Whether this is part of Modi's elaborate PR effort or just another chapter in the global acceptance of Modi, we may never know. But one thing is sure, Modi's clout outside India is growing by leaps and bounds and this factor cannot be ignored by the classes or the masses, come 2014.


----------



## andysays (Jan 9, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not your sharpest take.
> 
> One factor that isn't discussed enough about Labour's collapse in its former heartlands is that it is Labour local authorities who have been dutifully implementing Tory austerity for a decade. Ask a lot of people what they know about their local labour politicians and you might find that what they know is that their Labour council 'consulted' them on whether they should be cutting childrens centres or adult social care and then cut both anyway. As others have said, the first test of a new Labour leader will be the local elections, where, if they actually want to get some good results, it might be a good idea to address that. You don't have to know about specific areas blighted by potholes or bus routes which have disappeared but it would be nice if candidates could say something about what Labour councils should be doing if re-elected wouldn't it?


This is a fair point, but I  wonder what power or even direct influence the new Labour leader will have over the actions of Labour councils up and down the country.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 9, 2020)

How can people vote for RLB and not the Gardiner/Burgon dream ticket?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2020)

belboid said:


> Oh,odd, but I am (temporarily) in Singapore I suppose.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> ...



This seems to be a better link - Naming and Shaming: Barry Gardiner

Whether it constitutes explicit support I'm not sure although the million quid thing seems pretty dodgy. 

I'm sure we can all agree Gardiner is fucking awful in every possible way anyway.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2020)

andysays said:


> This is a fair point, but I  wonder what power or even direct influence the new Labour leader will have over the actions of Labour councils up and down the country.



Might it not be too optimistic that a new Labour leader with a fresh mandate to lead could possibly influence Labour councillors? As mighty as they are. 

I doubt it's going to happen but lets not make excuses for them in advance. Even steps to democratise the party, and give District Labour Party's some mechanism to hold their councillors to account, could make a big difference. Campaigning to restore funding and pledges to provide councils with the funds to run services properly when in govt could also make a big difference.


----------



## Spandex (Jan 9, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> One factor that isn't discussed enough about Labour's collapse in its former heartlands is that it is Labour local authorities who have been dutifully implementing Tory austerity for a decade. Ask a lot of people what they know about their local labour politicians and you might find that what they know is that their Labour council 'consulted' them on whether they should be cutting childrens centres or adult social care and then cut both anyway. As others have said, the first test of a new Labour leader will be the local elections, where, if they actually want to get some good results, it might be a good idea to address that. You don't have to know about specific areas blighted by potholes or bus routes which have disappeared but it would be nice if candidates could say something about what Labour councils should be doing if re-elected wouldn't it?


One of the things Corbyn utterly failed to do – both in the election and over his time as Labour leader - was make the link between austerity as a vague concept (which was ‘bad’), the funding cuts to councils and the day to day impact this had on people’s lives. Of course we could all relive the arguments over what Labour councils could or couldn’t, should and didn’t do about the funding cuts, but Corbyn never made explicit that austerity led to cuts to council funding which led to cuts to social care and children’s centres and reduced bin collections and local playgrounds falling apart and support services failing and leading to more homelessness and all the other things that anybody with the vaguest awareness couldn’t have failed to notice. Amongst all his spending commitments in the election I didn’t notice him talk about council funding. It was as if cuts to council services and their impacts were nothing to do with central government decisions, which left the blame for council cuts, which fell disproportionately on Labour councils, and the anger at the consequences aimed at the councils who administered it rather than the government, which was ultimately responsible.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 9, 2020)

Spandex said:


> One of the things Corbyn utterly failed to do – both in the election and over his time as Labour leader - was make the link between austerity as a vague concept (which was ‘bad’), the funding cuts to councils and the day to day impact this had on people’s lives. Of course we could all relive the arguments over what Labour councils could or couldn’t, should and didn’t do about the funding cuts, but Corbyn never made explicit that austerity led to cuts to council funding which led to cuts to social care and children’s centres and reduced bin collections and local playgrounds falling apart and support services failing and leading to more homelessness and all the other things that anybody with the vaguest awareness couldn’t have failed to notice. Amongst all his spending commitments in the election I didn’t notice him talk about council funding. It was as if cuts to council services and their impacts were nothing to do with central government decisions, which left the blame for council cuts, which fell disproportionately on Labour councils, and the anger at the consequences aimed at the councils who administered it rather than the government, which was ultimately responsible.



Yes, that's a very good point - for all the radical proposals in the manifesto there was nothing about funding local councils.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 9, 2020)

Spandex said:


> One of the things Corbyn utterly failed to do – both in the election and over his time as Labour leader - was make the link between austerity as a vague concept (which was ‘bad’), the funding cuts to councils and the day to day impact this had on people’s lives. Of course we could all relive the arguments over what Labour councils could or couldn’t, should and didn’t do about the funding cuts, but Corbyn never made explicit that austerity led to cuts to council funding which led to cuts to social care and children’s centres and reduced bin collections and local playgrounds falling apart and support services failing and leading to more homelessness and all the other things that anybody with the vaguest awareness couldn’t have failed to notice. Amongst all his spending commitments in the election I didn’t notice him talk about council funding. It was as if cuts to council services and their impacts were nothing to do with central government decisions, which left the blame for council cuts, which fell disproportionately on Labour councils, and the anger at the consequences aimed at the councils who administered it rather than the government, which was ultimately responsible.


Excellent point.

The SNP have this nailed down, constantly pushing the message that their hands are tied by Tory austerity and Westminster in general, and publicising how they work to mitigate it. Doubt it's any coincidence that Vote Leave (original in 2016 and 2.0 last December) failed to gain traction in Scotland, but have repeatedly triumphed in England, where their deflection's been trumpeted endlessly to great effect.

The party of the Bain Principle will of course be loathed to take any lessons from the Nats, but it's not like they invented message discipline, they're just using it well, as, tragically, are the Tories.


----------



## Supine (Jan 9, 2020)




----------



## Azrael (Jan 9, 2020)

There go the debates ...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 9, 2020)

Supine said:


> View attachment 195409



Shortest leadership bid ever. Bizarre. Even for them


----------



## Supine (Jan 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Shortest leadership bid ever. Bizarre. Even for them



I bet people weren't even picking up the phone


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 9, 2020)

Here are the latest nominations. Thornberry has 7 and Lewis 4


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 9, 2020)

Supine said:


> I bet people weren't even picking up the phone



Most probably had him on block.


----------



## xenon (Jan 9, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Every time I've seen Gardiner on TV, I've thought he was rubbish ....



A total fucking Charisma bypass. Which let’s face it, is important.   He has a very ignorable voice.


----------



## Supine (Jan 9, 2020)

So it looks like it will be Starmer. Happy with that, but now wondering if the Sunday tory press will start releasing whatever dirty they have on file.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 9, 2020)

I predict it won't be starmer


----------



## xenon (Jan 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> if Barry Gardiner is the answer, what’s the question?





Smokeandsteam said:


> if Barry Gardiner is the answer, what’s the question?


 Who’s bringing the biscuits to the meeting.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 9, 2020)

Supine said:


> So it looks like it will be Starmer. Happy with that, but now wondering if the Sunday tory press will start releasing whatever dirty they have on file.



For the PLP certainly, and no doubt for other unions in addition to Unison. He’s also the choice for faux socialists like Paul Mason. But the membership vote might be a somewhat different matter. However, given the dismal RLB campaign to date, he looks like the one to beat at present


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I predict it won't be starmer



Odds???


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> given the dismal RLB campaign to date, he looks like the one to beat at present



Sadly that looks like being true. 

I theoretically would be favouring RLB heavily, if I was an LP member, but she seems to be aiming to rival Barry Gardiner in the charisma bypass stakes. 

More importantly, despite me being a fan of New Green Deal etc., she's far too vague at getting anything across.

My own (outsider) odds suggest Starmer MAY end up with a strong win. 

I'm not liking that, but the competition eed to get their shit together .....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 9, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Odds???



2 pints to 1


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> 2 pints to 1



You'll lose ...


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 9, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not your sharpest take.
> 
> One factor that isn't discussed enough about Labour's collapse in its former heartlands is that it is Labour local authorities who have been dutifully implementing Tory austerity for a decade. Ask a lot of people what they know about their local labour politicians and you might find that what they know is that their Labour council 'consulted' them on whether they should be cutting childrens centres or adult social care and then cut both anyway. As others have said, the first test of a new Labour leader will be the local elections, where, if they actually want to get some good results, it might be a good idea to address that. You don't have to know about specific areas blighted by potholes or bus routes which have disappeared but it would be nice if candidates could say something about what Labour councils should be doing if re-elected wouldn't it?



Agree that Labour Councils implementing austerity has made them unpopular. I've posted upthread about this and that local community minded people I know in Lambeth / London joined Labour party when Corbyn to try to change how a New Labour/ Blairite Council like mine worked.

However in my patch Brexit is not an issue. My local Council ward ( Coldharbour ) was in the top 10% most deprived wards in the country yet was 80% Remain.

Seem to me that Labour vote in Leave areas transferred to Tories as they wanted Brexit done. Not the same in my area. And Labour vote held up. Inner London is the new red wall.

However all the issues of a Council adminstration dominated by Blairites and the local working class feeling they are not represented still holds in my area. They know this but voting Tory is beyond the pale in my area.

Childrens centres etc have been an issue I my area.

When my popular local ward Clllr was kicked out by the Blairites because she could no longer stomach there way of running the Council they replaced her with the partner of another Blairite Cllr. As the New Labour lot control the selection of Ward Cllrs.

From the start my local Cllrs opposed Corbyn. They were not keen on the new increase of membership.

My popular ward Cllr who was kicked out ( Rachel a long time Cllr) told me that with Blair/ Iraq the membership had dropped off so much it was difficult to fill posts in local ward party. People thought what's the point in staying a member. She was a supporter of the Third Way. But as it progressed she got more fed up with it at a local level.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 9, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> You'll lose ...



It's alright I'll get you ruddles


----------



## MrSki (Jan 9, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> if I was an LP member, but she seems to be aiming to rival Barry Gardiner in the charisma bypass stakes.


Shame I thought this was is launch video.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 10, 2020)

I wonder when the Guardian article calling everyone voting for Starmer a sexist will come out. I mean they wouldn't apply that selectively right?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2020)

Supine said:


> So it looks like it will be Starmer. Happy with that, but now wondering if the Sunday tory press will start releasing whatever dirty they have on file.



If it is Starmer, the Tory press’ strategy will be three-fold: (1) he’s pro EU, tried to block Brexit, can’t trust him that he won’t try and rejoin etc.: (2) hold him responsible for every scumbag who wasn’t prosecuted under his watch as DPP; (3) attack him for providing legal representation for individuals and groups deemed unpatriotic.

These lines of attack - especially the first two - will be very effective, no matter how bullshit they are.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2020)

They’ll also portray him as soft on immigrants and asylum seekers, a threat to nation security, part of the metropolitan elite etc.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 10, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> They’ll also portray him as soft on immigrants and asylum seekers, a threat to nation security, part of the metropolitan elite etc.



Anyone is going to get that tbf. They can't be picking a leader on the basis of 'who won't the right wing press attack' as that person doesn't exist.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 10, 2020)

The loathing for London/"metropolitan elite" is a brilliant wheeze. The centre is effete, multicultural, weak, and only the burning fire of Brexit can clean it. Manages to take in racism, exceptionalism with a dose of puritanism and that hoary old English bullshit of being reasonable people not prone to excitement.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2020)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Anyone is going to get that tbf. They can't be picking a leader on the basis of 'who won't the right wing press attack' as that person doesn't exist.



I agree, though the metropolitan elite line will be harder to push with RLB. With her I guess the ‘loony left’ ‘she’ll turn the UK into Venezuela’ angle will be the dominant one.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> If it is Starmer, the Tory press’ strategy will be three-fold: (1) he’s pro EU, tried to block Brexit, can’t trust him that he won’t try and rejoin etc.: (2) hold him responsible for every scumbag who wasn’t prosecuted under his watch as DPP; (3) attack him for providing legal representation for individuals and groups deemed unpatriotic.
> 
> These lines of attack - especially the first two - will be very effective, no matter how bullshit they are.



Starmer's problem with attack line 1 is that it is true. His ultra remain position _alone _makes him utterly unsuited for the task that Labour faces. That the conclusion he seems to have drawn from the disaster is that Labour wasn't remain enough brings into focus questions of basic competence. As for the latter two points of attack, there is no getting around his background as a key mover and shaker of the liberal narrating class. He needs to own it and deal with it.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Starmer's problem with attack line 1 is that it is true. His ultra remain position _alone _makes him utterly unsuited for the task that Labour faces. That the conclusion he seems to have drawn from the disaster is that Labour wasn't remain enough brings into focus questions of basic competence. As for the latter two points of attack, there is no getting around his background as a key mover and shaker of the liberal narrating class. He needs to own it and deal with it.


Given that the majority of Labour members, as opposed to voters, are/were apparently Remain supporters, Starmer's stance may not be an obstacle to becoming leader.

It's after that that the problems would start.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2020)

andysays said:


> Given that the majority of Labour members, as opposed to voters, are/were apparently Remain supporters, Starmer's stance may not be an obstacle to becoming leader.
> 
> It's after that that the problems would start.



Exactly, the media and Tories will say very little at this point. But if Starmer wins, his position - which was to ignore the leader and conference, and keep pushing for a full remain position will be used to hammer him again and again. Wrong, disloyal and anti-democratic. Not a good look.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2020)

treelover said:


> Leadership frontrunners both appoint pro-Corbyn figures to campaign teams – LabourList
> 
> 
> Both frontrunners in Labour's leadership race – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer – have appointed key Corbynite figures to senior positions in their campaign teams.…
> ...


lisa who?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 10, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Exactly, the media and Tories will say very little at this point. But if Starmer wins, his position - which was to ignore the leader and conference, and keep pushing for a full remain position will be used to hammer him again and again. Wrong, disloyal and anti-democratic. Not a good look.



I'd expect the media to be quite supportive of Starmer at this point tbh - they'd much prefer someone like him as Labour leader. Obviously once he was in they'd revert to kicking him as hard as they could.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Starmer's problem with attack line 1 is that it is true. His ultra remain position _alone _makes him utterly unsuited for the task that Labour faces. That the conclusion he seems to have drawn from the disaster is that Labour wasn't remain enough brings into focus questions of basic competence.



Possibly, though maybe in a few years time, when the dire impact of actually existing Brexit is felt by the public, staunch remainerism may not be viewed so negatively. I suspect though the Tories and their faithful lapdogs in the vermin media will find some boogy man to blame for the country’s economic woes that the gullible public will fall for yet again.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 10, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Possibly, though maybe in a few years time, when the dire impact of actually existing Brexit is felt by the public, staunch remainerism may not be viewed so negatively. I suspect though the Tories and their faithful lapdogs in the vermin media will find some boogy man to blame for the country’s economic woes that the gullible public will fall for yet again.



Given the riots and strikes in France - as workers and unions fiercely resist the imposition of the EU's austerity agenda by its stooge Macron - it's clear that there are dire impacts from being part of the supra state too. The idea that there is going to be some popular clamour to rejoin a sinking club of neo-liberalism in a year or two is barmy. Even by your standards.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given the riots and strikes in France - as workers and unions fiercely resist the imposition of the EU's austerity agenda by its stooge Macron - it's clear that there are dire impacts from being part of the supra state too. The idea that there is going to be some popular clamour to rejoin a sinking club of neo-liberalism in a year or two is barmy. Even by your standards.



Agree the EU is shit, but I dare say that the economic impacts of a Tory Brexit may be worse.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 10, 2020)

Supine said:


> From what I've read in the last few weeks I'm not sure anybody can bring the labor factions together. All sides seem intent on ideological purity rather than forming a left of centre force that can win elections.


It must happen though, otherwise the party might as well disband.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2020)

Clive Lewis is surfing the current wave of speculation and calling for a referendum on the future of the royal family


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Possibly, though maybe in a few years time, when the dire impact of actually existing Brexit is felt by the public, staunch remainerism may not be viewed so negatively. I suspect though the Tories and their faithful lapdogs in the vermin media will find some boogy man to blame for the country’s economic woes that the gullible public will fall for yet again.



This is presumably what Starmer is counting on - that the UK will be even more immiserated post Brexit than it was to start with, and everyone will suddenly realise they voted the wrong way after all. Then he will triumphantly declare "I told you so!" and be swept to power on a wave of popular support. 

I wonder how that strategy will work out for him.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Agree that Labour Councils implementing austerity has made them unpopular. I've posted upthread about this and that local community minded people I know in Lambeth / London joined Labour party when Corbyn to try to change how a New Labour/ Blairite Council like mine worked.
> 
> However in my patch Brexit is not an issue. My local Council ward ( Coldharbour ) was in the top 10% most deprived wards in the country yet was 80% Remain.
> 
> ...



Agree with most of that but I'd say it was generally a case of not voting rather than voting Tory, although some did switch. 

Definitely even Remain voters in many areas of the country preferred the 'get Brexit done' line to 'years more of this'.


----------



## LDC (Jan 10, 2020)

andysays said:


> Given that the majority of Labour members, as opposed to voters, are/were apparently Remain supporters, Starmer's stance may not be an obstacle to becoming leader.
> 
> It's after that that the problems would start.



Exactly, a key problem for Labour in the recent debacle was mistaking the membership for the electorate. London/scene bubbles and echo chambers etc etc..


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is presumably what Starmer is counting on - that the UK will be even more immiserated post Brexit than it was to start with, and everyone will suddenly realise they voted the wrong way after all. Then he will triumphantly declare "I told you so!" and be swept to power on a wave of popular support.
> 
> I wonder how that strategy will work out for him.



Obviously that’s fanciful, but Starmer isn’t saying that tbf.

And unless you believe Tory Brexit is going to deliver prosperity to those forgotten towns and those using foodbanks at some point there will be at least some accounting for the opportunism and bullshit of Brexiteers.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 10, 2020)

andysays said:


> Given that the majority of Labour members, as opposed to voters, are/were apparently Remain supporters, Starmer's stance may not be an obstacle to becoming leader.
> 
> It's after that that the problems would start.


Majority Labour voters, 2 to 1 broadly, voted remain
?

Groundhog Day subject this


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Obviously that’s fanciful, but Starmer isn’t saying that tbf.
> 
> And unless you believe Tory Brexit is going to deliver prosperity to those forgotten towns and those using foodbanks at some point there will be at least some accounting for the opportunism and bullshit of Brexiteers.


What are Labours plans to regenerate those forgotten towns given the fact that the EU failed to do so?


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Majority Labour voters, 2 to 1 broadly, voted remain
> ?
> 
> Groundhog Day subject this


That's not my recollection, though I may be wrong.

Are you/your source referring to Labour voters in 2017, 2019 or at some unspecified point in the past?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Obviously that’s fanciful, but Starmer isn’t saying that tbf.
> 
> And unless you believe Tory Brexit is going to deliver prosperity to those forgotten towns and those using foodbanks at some point there will be at least some accounting for the opportunism and bullshit of Brexiteers.



Of course he's not saying it, the strategy is to wait until people realise they got it wrong.  Then he'll say it.

While the Tory interpretation of the referendum will indeed not satisfy people, that does not mean that a political position of "we were right all along" will be of any use.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Of course he's not saying it, the strategy is to wait until people realise they got it wrong.  Then he'll say it.
> 
> While the Tory interpretation of the referendum will indeed not satisfy people, that does not mean that a political position of "we were right all along" will be of any use.



I really doubt that is going to be the message going forward. It may be ‘you should have made a deal that protected jobs etc’ but unless the whole shebang has gone utterly tits up no one is going to seek to refight the referendum.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> What are Labours plans to regenerate those forgotten towns given the fact that the EU failed to do so?



What were they before? It has time to develop new ones.

But it’s down to the Tories right now and their feet should be held to the fire over it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I really doubt that is going to be the message going forward. It may be ‘you should have made a deal that protected jobs etc’ but unless the whole shebang has gone utterly tits up no one is going to seek to refight the referendum.



Wanna bet? Jess Phillips already is.


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, that's a very good point - for all the radical proposals in the manifesto there was nothing about funding local councils.


There's quite a lot in it about funding local councils. Starting with the very first line of the Communities and Local Government section, _Labour will reverse the Tory decade of austerity for local government and aim to restore council spending powers to 2010 levels over the lifetime of the Parliament. _


----------



## rasputin (Jan 10, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Majority Labour voters, 2 to 1 broadly, voted remain






andysays said:


> That's not my recollection, though I may be wrong.
> 
> Are you/your source referring to Labour voters in 2017, 2019 or at some unspecified point in the past?



According to the British Election Study, 68% of Labour voters supported remain in the 2016 referendum.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Wanna bet? Jess Phillips already is.



No one is going to listen to her. Or at least no one important in this game.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

killer b said:


> There's quite a lot in it about funding local councils. Starting with the very first line of the Communities and Local Government section, _Labour will reverse the Tory decade of austerity for local government and aim to restore council spending powers to 2010 levels over the lifetime of the Parliament. _



Fair, have to say I didn't read it. Do you think this was adequately communicated?


----------



## treelover (Jan 10, 2020)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Anyone is going to get that tbf. They can't be picking a leader on the basis of 'who won't the right wing press attack' as that person doesn't exist.



Lisa Nandy would be a bit harder to attack.


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair, have to say I didn't read it. Do you think this was adequately communicated?


I dunno. It certainly wasn't adequately reported though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 10, 2020)

Yeah, but is that Real Labour voters or fake labour voters?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 10, 2020)

No-one will go full rejoin until they see how it pans out.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> What were they before? It has time to develop new ones.
> 
> But it’s down to the Tories right now and their feet should be held to the fire over it.


Completely agree with holding the Tories to account and a large test will be around the North West and North East and the promises of ' powerhouses' and more control locally . However holding to account without articulating what Labour has to offer in those areas  are two different things. Many of the places that went to the Tories are unlikely to directly benefit from ' powerhouse' strategies in any case, cities might but towns only indirectly.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 10, 2020)

rasputin said:


> According to the British Election Study, 68% of Labour voters supported remain in the 2016 referendum.


Take the large cities out and you have a different picture


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

treelover said:


> Lisa Nandy would be a bit harder to attack.



Yes, though you can attack anyone if they are pulling one way and the Party is pulling another. Whether Nandy, Starmer or RLB they collectively have to at some point decide what Labour’s view (of the future post Brexit arrangements) will be going forward. They can all then rally round it however they fought in the war.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Completely agree with holding the Tories to account and a large test will be around the North West and North East and the promises of ' powerhouses' and more control locally . However holding to account without articulating what Labour has to offer in those areas  are two different things. Many of the places that went to the Tories are unlikely to directly benefit from ' powerhouse' strategies in any case, cities might but towns only indirectly.



And that also goes beyond a lumpen notion that it’s all the EU when Amazon has every small town retailer and trader by the bollocks and Britain’s housing is a fire sale for the world’s wealthiest.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> And that also goes beyond a lumpen notion that it’s all the EU when Amazon has every small town retailer and trader by the bollocks and Britain is a fire sale for the world’s wealthiest.



Who said it was all the EU?


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Completely agree with holding the Tories to account and a large test will be around the North West and North East and the promises of ' powerhouses' and more control locally . However holding to account without articulating what Labour has to offer in those areas  are two different things. Many of the places that went to the Tories are unlikely to directly benefit from ' powerhouse' strategies in any case, cities might but towns only indirectly.


I was reading somewhere yesterday that loads of towns in the south have suffered a similar local downturn to towns in the north, but because the slack has been taken up by commuting to london no-one had noticed. The main tory idea I've seen is to improve transport infrastructure from depressed towns to 'where the jobs are' - ie metropolitan city areas - and do the same thing up here. Don't think it'll really cut it.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Take the large cities out and you have a different picture


Why would you simply "take the large cities out"?

Having read that article briefly, I'm still no clearer as to when these 68% of Labour voters who reportedly voted to remain actually voted for Labour,  but your comment makes no sense, unless you can actually explain why Labour voters in large cities are to be "taken out"


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 10, 2020)

andysays said:


> Why would you simply "take the large cities out"?
> 
> Having read that article briefly, I'm still no clearer as to when these 68% of Labour voters who reportedly voted to remain actually voted for Labour,  but your comment makes no sense, unless you can actually explain why Labour voters in large cities are to be "taken out"


Just musing on what the labour remain vote would be if that was the case.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who said it was all the EU?



I’m implying it from the notion that whether someone is a Remainer (if that’s a useful term anymore) or not is the defining principle for who can lead the Party.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Just musing on what the labour remain vote would be if that was the case.


Funnily enough, I was just musing on what it would look like if we took out everyone born on a Tuesday


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m implying it from the notion that whether someone is a Remainer (if that’s a useful term anymore) or not is the defining principle for who can lead the Party.



That's not an implication so much as a stretch.

No one is saying every problem that exists in towns is purely attributable to the EU. What people are saying is that the architect of Labour's disastrous second referendum position is not going to help the Labour Party now.

See, you say this: 



Mr Moose said:


> I really doubt that is going to be the message going forward. It may be ‘you should have made a deal that protected jobs etc’ but unless the whole shebang has gone utterly tits up no one is going to seek to refight the referendum.



But actually, you're position has been refighting the referendum since the referendum and you're continuing to do that. You say Starmer doesn't want to refight the referendum but you're favourably disposed to him because that is exactly what he will do if and when he circumstances allow him to do so.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is presumably what Starmer is counting on - that the UK will be even more immiserated post Brexit than it was to start with, and everyone will suddenly realise they voted the wrong way after all. Then he will triumphantly declare "I told you so!" and be swept to power on a wave of popular support.
> 
> I wonder how that strategy will work out for him.



Yeah, tbh Labour need a different calibre of leader to ingratiate themselves with the public. If only they had an adulterous Bullingdon club posh boy who got sacked as journalist for making up quotes, got sacked from the cabinet for lying, was unanimously found to have lied to the Queen by 11 supreme court justices, got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he couldn't be bothered to read his briefings, had a long history of open bigotry towards women, gay people, muslims and working class people. Only then will the very discerning and super smart British public think, 'finally, a labour PM fit to run the country'.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 10, 2020)

It's the 5 years time bit that makes me not bothered too much about this. I'd bet on another leadership election b4 then.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's not an implication so much as a stretch.
> 
> No one is saying every problem that exists in towns is purely attributable to the EU. What people are saying is that the architect of Labour's disastrous second referendum position is not going to help the Labour Party now.
> 
> ...



It was but I’m not now. The result was politically unresolved before. Now it most certainly is. We will be well out of the EU and onto a new arrangement before Labour has to even consider its next campaign strategy.

At this point whether the leader was a Remainer or Leaver makes zero odds. In fact they were all Remainers and even Nandy would only have been arguing for a very close relationship with the EU, a BRINO. What they will have to do is articulate the UK’s post Brexit positions and possibilities. None of them are near that and none of what any of them have said before particularly matters. It’s a blank page. The leader should be chosen from who can best help create and present the socialist vision that should go on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Yeah, tbh Labour need a different calibre of leader to ingratiate themselves with the public. If only they had an adulterous Bullingdon club posh boy who got sacked as journalist for making up quotes, got sacked from the cabinet for lying, was unanimously found to have lied to the Queen by 11 supreme court justices, got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he couldn't be bothered to read his briefings, had a long history of open bigotry towards women, gay people, muslims and working class people. Only then will the very discerning and super smart British public think, 'finally, a labour PM fit to run the country'.


Adultery and having lied to the queen? These are really on the charge sheet?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> The leader should be chosen from who can best help create and present the socialist vision that should go on it.


And which candidate is that, considering that at most only one of them might be reasonably called a socialist? 

The argument that the LP needs to be "credible" (i.e. liberal-left) to be elected and should therefore move rightwards is one thing, but to pretend that one supports a "socialist vision" while making such an argument is absurd.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> It was but I’m not now. The result was politically unresolved before. Now it most certainly is.



It was resolved before, but you refused to understand this. 



Mr Moose said:


> We will be well out of the EU and onto a new arrangement before Labour has to even consider its next campaign strategy.



Wrong again. Tory Brexit won't satisfy anyone and Labour urgently needs a vision of what the UK should look like outside the EU _now_. You've had 4 years to develop a position on this, you still don't have one and guess what you still need one. 



Mr Moose said:


> At this point whether the leader was a Remainer or Leaver makes zero odds. In fact they were all Remainers



Wrong again. Those who refused to countenance leaving the supra state are no use. 

Just to be clear - people like you are of no practical use.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

You can't argue that a socialist vision is needed and is also unelectable. You need to demonstrate how that socialist vision relates to real life and so becomes necessary in peoples common sense. A leader _presenting _it is not the point  -  a wider movement actually living it is. I don't think the labour party can ever do that but you at least have to come to this right.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> It was resolved before, but you refused to understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are wrong on lots of levels, but what ‘practical’ use are you btw?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> You can't argue that a socialist vision is needed and is also unelectable. You need to demonstrate how that socialist vision relates to real life and so becomes necessary in peoples common sense. A leader _presenting _it is not the point  -  a wider movement actually living it is. I don't think the labour party can ever do that but you at least have to come to this right.



I’m not saying it’s always unelectable. But that it was under Corbyn was obvious months back.

We’ll just get into another argument about electability. Surely the last election gives you some pause for thought.

And of course live it first. The Labour Party could help people from the off without even being elected if it chooses to invest in communities.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> And which candidate is that, considering that at most only one of them might be reasonably called a socialist?
> 
> The argument that the LP needs to be "credible" (i.e. liberal-left) to be elected and should therefore move rightwards is one thing, but to pretend that one supports a "socialist vision" while making such an argument is absurd.



There is obviously a sweet spot. I’m not sure what on Earth you could possibly hope for electorally (I appreciate you don’t care much for it) without looking for that. What is the target small town voter telling you about socialism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m not saying it’s always unelectable. But that it was under Corbyn was obvious months back.
> 
> We’ll just get into another argument about electability. Surely the last election gives you some pause for thought.
> 
> And of course live it first. The Labour Party could help people from the off without even being elected if it chooses to invest in communities.


Until what happened is agreed on - and we won't because it means accepting that the switch to remain took 50 seats off labour and so the people supporting that shouldn't ever be listened to again - then there's no point. 2019 should be _your _wake  up call, we were right, not you  - you are going to kill what's left of that party. PASOK - look 'em up.

I am quite astonished that this is still going on and i don't think i want to do this again. It is 100% clear as day.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

OK, what is the remaining labour coalition - members and voters? What was it in 2017? Let's work backwards.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> There is obviously a sweet spot. I’m not sure what on Earth you could possibly hope for electorally (I appreciate you don’t care much for it) without looking for that. What is the target small town voter telling you about socialism?


Butchers post 1344 provides the answer to the question. I'm just making the point that the LP you seem to want is not a socialist party (unless you take Morrison line).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> We’ll just get into another argument about electability. Surely the last election gives you some pause for thought.



But not you. Fascinating. 



Mr Moose said:


> And of course live it first. The Labour Party could help people from the off without even being elected if it chooses to invest in communities.



Invest. Fascinating.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Butchers post 1344 provides the answer to the question. I'm just making the point that the LP you seem to want is not a socialist party (unless you take Morrison line).



I don't disagree. I don't believe it's even close to an overnight sell. For that reason you are right to prioritise actual doing over electoral politics. But purely for electoral politics it has to be electable. That can still change lives fundamentally.

I don't understand the vision of post Brexit Britain, with respect to its trading and industry that you can sell as purely socialist. The voters are hyped to expect trade deals and cheap goods from far away. That is going to take a colossal untangling. Other measures, like nationalised railways or a national care service are easy sells.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I don't understand the vision of post Brexit Britain, with respect to its trading and industry that you can sell as purely socialist. The voters are hyped to expect trade deals and cheap goods from far away. That is going to take a colossal untangling.



Are the voters hyped to extract trade deals and cheap goods from far away? What evidence do you have for this?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Until what happened is agreed on - and we won't because it means accepting that the switch to remain took 50 seats off labour and so the people supporting that shouldn't ever be listened to again - then there's no point. 2019 should be _your _wake  up call, we were right, not you  - you are going to kill what's left of that party. PASOK - look 'em up.
> 
> I am quite astonished that this is still going on and i don't think i want to do this again. It is 100% clear as day.



I think you are creating an hysterical orthodoxy. It's like Labour's post EU election nosedive never happened. Labour was in danger of becoming the third party. Brexit was always going to defeat it, it just had to choose in which way.

You can argue that it may have lost less seats, but its not an argument that it would have won. It had one thing it could change in order to win and that was its leadership. You rejected that, same way Ed couldn't be moved, that was plotting, same way Brexit wasn't going to lead to Johnson. We all have 'ifs'.

You can carry on fighting Brexit for the next five years, but it's over for now.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Sorry I'm totally confused. 
You "don't disagree" that the LP you want is not socialist?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 10, 2020)

It should all be so simple. If you believe in this parliamentary democracy stuff you get together with others who basically agree with you and stand for what you believe in. But now you have to try and guess 5 years in advance what will be the topic of the day in 2025, who will be the best PR person to present your product to the electorate, investigate all their dark secrets which might make them toxic to the people of the UK, prophesy unto yourself what bollocks the media might invent in the meantime, survey the entire population to check that your hunches might be even vaguely accurate, etc etc, by which time you’ve forgotten why you started the whole process in the first place. Or am I missing something?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I think you are creating an hysterical orthodoxy. It's like Labour's post EU election nosedive never happened. Labour was in danger of becoming the third party. Brexit was always going to defeat it, it just had to choose in which way.
> 
> You can argue that it may have lost less seats, but its not an argument that it would have won. It had one thing it could change in order to win and that was its leadership. You rejected that, same way Ed couldn't be moved, that was plotting, same way Brexit wasn't going to lead to Johnson. We all have 'ifs'.
> 
> You can carry on fighting Brexit for the next five years, but it's over for now.


It's _over _because people like you engineered over 3 years a situation where labour loses by supporting and entrenching a remain position. If we can't agree on the map then how can we agree where to go? What would 50 seats more to labour and less to tory have done btw? Just a little thing, a trinket, bauble, or changed everything?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are the voters hyped to extract trade deals and cheap goods from far away? What evidence do you have for this?



Yes many are. What on Earth is it you think many voters want Brexit to deliver? We've heard it endlessly on vox pops and question time, get on, be our own country out there in the world, make trade deals etc. 

Do you not believe them? What is it you think they really want?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> It's _over _because people like you engineered over 3 years a situation where labour loses by supporting and entrenching a remain position. If we can't agree on the map then how can we agree where to go? What would 50 seats more to labour and less to tory have done btw? Just a little thing, a trinket, bauble, or changed everything?



But it would lost others. It would probalby have split in two before the election anyway. How would you have taken it out of that 2018 nosedive?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It should all be so simple. If you believe in this parliamentary democracy stuff you get together with others who basically agree with you and stand for what you believe in. But now you have to try and guess 5 years in advance what will be the topic of the day in 2025, who will be the best PR person to present your product to the electorate, investigate all their dark secrets which might make them toxic to the people of the UK, prophesy unto yourself what bollocks the media might invent in the meantime, survey the entire population to check that your hunches might be even vaguely accurate, etc etc, by which time you’ve forgotten why you started the whole process in the first place. Or am I missing something?


I must say, the anarchists are amongst the worst contributors to this thread - the mirror image of drongos like sleater, just wishing something else up from their imagination just from the other side.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> But it would lost others. It would probalby have split in two before the election anyway. How would you have taken it out of that 2018 nosedive?


No it wouldn't. No seat would have been lost to the tories. Not a single one. 

There was no nosedive before the PIVOT TO REMAIN. So, don't do that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Labour was in danger of becoming the third party.


This is total nonsense. Never going to happen.
It didn't happen in 2010, it was not going happen in 2019.

EDIT: The fact that Labour was able to hold Sheffield Hallam, a seat the LDs should have won, just underlines how weak the supposed threat from the yellow wankers was.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

50 seats lost. It is not going in. 50 seats lost. 50 seats lost. Why is it not going in? Because the approach these people supported led to it. If there is ever a lesson that these people want to destroy that party this is it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

I want to destroy the party but from the left with a collectively constituted social movement prepared to take over its functions and go beyond them, not with this...shit.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Labour was in danger of becoming the third party.



Fuck's sake. Pay the server fund £10.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> 50 seats lost. It is not going in. 50 seats lost. 50 seats lost. Why is it not going in? Because the approach these people supported led to it. If there is ever a lesson that these people want to destroy that party this is it.



You are not listening. But it's pointless, that's over.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 10, 2020)

I shouldn't be but I am actually amazed by the huge swathes, not just a few headbangers, who are taking view that labour wasn't remain enough. Completely mental but reckon there is a majority of labour types who think this way. Ah well cheerio.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> You are not listening. But it's pointless, that's over.


Why and how it happened is not pointless - it's central.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> This is total nonsense. Never going to happen.
> It didn't happen in 2010, it was not going happen in 2019.
> 
> EDIT: The fact that Labour was able to hold Sheffield Hallam, a seat the LDs should have won, just underlines how weak the supposed threat from the yellow wankers was.



Yes, because it neutralised it by becoming more remain. Third party in seats, no, but vote share tumbled. 

Like I say, pointless.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes many are. What on Earth is it you think many voters want Brexit to deliver? We've heard it endlessly on vox pops and question time, get on, be our own country out there in the world, make trade deals etc.
> 
> Do you not believe them? What is it you think they really want?



They're not talking about trade deals and cheap goods mate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I shouldn't be but I am actually amazed by the huge swathes, not just a few headbangers, who are taking view that labour wasn't remain enough. Completely mental but reckon there is a majority of labour types who think this way. Ah well cheerio.


We always  said there was  reckoning to come between 1) the people who joined the party for corbyn and 2) when the weight of those people impacted on trad labour voters. It happened, and it happened in the worst way possible. In the most electorally efficient way with longer term consequences - a new reliance on nothing consumer choice voters in change seats vs....


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I shouldn't be but I am actually amazed by the huge swathes, not just a few headbangers, who are taking view that labour wasn't remain enough. Completely mental but reckon there is a majority of labour types who think this way. Ah well cheerio.


Genuinely deluded, like Moose's above post.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> Fuck's sake. Pay the server fund £10.



Pay it yourself for fucks sake. There's no forfeit for disagreeing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I shouldn't be but I am actually amazed by the huge swathes, not just a few headbangers, who are taking view that labour wasn't remain enough. Completely mental but reckon there is a majority of labour types who think this way. Ah well cheerio.


What's crazy is that some of us were pointing out the danger of Labour's move to Remain for ages, that it was in danger of costing them traditional Labour seats. That's exactly what did happen and yet it is still us that are wrong and them that were right.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 10, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Genuinely deluded, like Moose's above post.



I'm not saying it needed to be more Remain. I'm saying it wasn't going to square that argument successfully. 

Clearly that is the orthodoxy and there is no point me arguing it. So I'm now going to enjoy my evening and hope you do too.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Pay it yourself for fucks sake. There's no forfeit for disagreeing.



Yeah, you probably missed the reference. Around that time you were thinking Labour were in danger of being the third party, I bet anyone on this thread (Wilf took me up on it - and paid) that this was bollocks.

Nothing you've said suggests to me you have a great idea of electoral politics. Which is a shame for someone who apparently invests so much in electoral politics.

Just pay.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 10, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I must say, the anarchists are amongst the worst contributors to this thread - the mirror image of drongos like sleater, just wishing something else up from their imagination just from the other side.


I was just pointing out that the Labour Party electoral game seems to be wholly about electability, as if anyone has the slightest idea what that means now, next year or in 5 years time. And the content of any message to ‘the people’, or anyone else, is unimportant by comparison. I would have hoped that that would matter just a little bit more than it would appear to. (Is the mirror image of drongos sognord?)


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Agree with most of that but I'd say it was generally a case of not voting rather than voting Tory, although some did switch.
> 
> Definitely even Remain voters in many areas of the country preferred the 'get Brexit done' line to 'years more of this'.



Feeling at work was sick of Brexit, let the Northerners have what they want and if it goes wrong not our fault.

From what Ive seen so far the issue of Brexit has been avoided so far in the leadership contest.

I would like to see a candidate who will recognise the working class are spilt on Brexit.

Inner London was and is Remain. Brexit is resented. Labour vote held up. Personally I supported the policy of having a conformitary referendum. I thought this was good compromise between working class areas like mine in inner London ( Remain) and working class areas in the North.

( to be borne in mind a Council ward like mine In inner London contains a lot of people who aren't "British" so can't vote at national elections or the EU referendum. So in my area Im quite privileged. I bear this in mind when voting. None of my EU friends from other EU countries saw UK leaving EU as a positive. The opposite in fact.)

I would like to see a candidate deal with the issue of the this division. So far I don't see it.

Brexit has caused and will continue to cause divisions imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I was just pointing out that the Labour Party electoral game seems to be wholly about electability, as if anyone has the slightest idea what that means now, next year or in 5 years time. And the content of any message to ‘the people’, or anyone else, is unimportant by comparison. I would have hoped that that would matter just a little bit more than it would appear to. (Is the mirror image of drongos sognord?)


Of course their game is about electability - it's built in. What people are talking about is the forms this may take (and if they've any sense, how this might feed into or be fed by a wider movement). That ability to tap into and talk about and from people issues should be anarchists bread and butter too. Not just saying elections are shit and anarchism is great, People, you know. Real people.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 10, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Of course their game is about electability - it's built in. What people are talking about is the forms this may take (and if they've any sense, how this might feed into or be fed by a wider movement). That ability to tap into and talk about and from people issues should be anarchists bread and butter too. Not just saying elections are shit and anarchism is great, People, you know. Real people.


Yeah, but people have lost sight of all that they believe in, JC pretending to watch the Queen on Xmas day, candidates saying they’d press the button in imaginary unspecified circumstances. Real people can smell rats too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Yeah, but people have lost sight of all that they believe in, JC pretending to watch the Queen on Xmas day, candidates saying they’d press the button in imaginary unspecified circumstances. Real people can smell rats too.


I don't see what that post has to do this thread. Happy xmas though!


----------



## treelover (Jan 10, 2020)

i want to vote for Lisa Nandy, but on her twitter page, the others you may like, includes, Flint, Cooper, Thornberry!


----------



## Cid (Jan 10, 2020)

treelover said:


> i want to vote for Lisa Nandy, but on her twitter page, the others you may like, includes, Flint, Cooper, Thornberry!



Why do you want to vote for her?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 10, 2020)

treelover said:


> i want to vote for Lisa Nandy, but on her twitter page, the others you may like, includes, Flint, Cooper, Thornberry!


No problem with Flint: principled on Brexit...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 10, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Adultery and having lied to the queen? These are really on the charge sheet?



To be clear they seem to be pretty significant breaches of conservative values. I don’t give a fuck myself.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 10, 2020)

treelover said:


> i want to vote for Lisa Nandy, but on her twitter page, the others you may like, includes, Flint, Cooper, Thornberry!



Perhaps indicative of something


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> To be clear they seem to be pretty significant breaches of conservative values. I don’t give a fuck myself.


It sounded like a list of bad things. But whatever, your bad list is unfathomably and childishly big so...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2020)

Again, i blame chris morris. A generation of polemic stunted by the BBC/C4 and people who claimed to be first generation graduates/on a scholarship.

Nothing added, no analysis.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 11, 2020)

They ought not to be played again, as it was clear they were going to be in the run up to last month's general election. Knowing their place and abiding by the rules that were dictated to them (but didn't apply to the Tories) fucked us. So, don't try and be too clever, just go for the one who is most gifted at twatting the Tories. 

Sell socialism. And get good at it. Set traps for them or allow them to fall into those of their own making and take it from there. In other words: we want someone who will dare to oppose rather than applaud their 'colleagues', who are in fact their enemies. Or at least they are my enemies as well as all the rest of us who get the end of the stick from rich Tories.

I'd go as far left as possible. And again, don't try and be too clever. Set your stall out and make your case. Seize on their crimes and exploit the political opportunity. Why play nice? THEY aren't nice.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2020)

What amazes me (but probably shouldn't) is that after Labour's growing disappearance in working class towns, after the Brexit vote, even after the gen election, people on here are still posing the problem as 'how should Labour do little more than pull the levers to the point where people vote differently in 5 years'.  Rather than thinking about the party in a deep relationship with voters - something set in day to day life, in places - something that finally moves beyond the idea of the party as the place where politics and power are done, paradoxically, the working class becomes no more than a herd of people to be corralled (the working class as an extension of the party). Can't say I've been reading the different candidates statements, haven't really imagining Sir Keir Starmer of Emily Thornberry would be planning to extend and shift the party towards being a social movement tbh. But, from what I've seen, the left has been just as bad. Rebecca Long Bailey's thing that said the word 'community' every paragraph was  a garbled mishmash of contradictory ideas that showed nothing had really changed.  Things are going to be fucking awful and all the Labour Party will have will be something slightly to the left (or right) of Ed Miliband, but with added 'patriotism'.

Edit: not aimed at the post above, just a generic wail of despair.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2020)

Londons 'red wall'  Sadiq Khan to 'lovebomb' Lib Dem voters in bid to win London mayoral election


----------



## gosub (Jan 11, 2020)

Tom Gordon: Scottish Labour’s position is worse than you thought..  So at mo best Labour can hope for is to be even more dependant on SNP than tories were on DUP


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> No problem with Flint: principled on Brexit...



Ah, so no issue with her record on social security, etc?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 11, 2020)

treelover said:


> Ah, so no issue with her record on social security, etc?



If you're waiting for the perfect candidate, you may be waiting some time...


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2020)

> *Labour’s heartlands may be gone for ever. It needs to find new ones *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Labour could wait for that relationship to go wrong. But there is no guarantee that voters will then return to Labour. The Brexit party, or some other, yet-to-be-formed vehicle for nationalism, or regional pride, or nostalgia, may appeal to an ageing electorate more.
> 
> 
> Labour will probably have to accept that some of its old “heartlands” are gone for good. In the cities, and in growing southern towns such as Swindon, which New Labour won and the party has since lost, Labour will have to build new ones.



Andy Beckett in the Guardian make it clear that Labour should abandon/forget about the 'traditional working class, gets a lot of recs as well.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2020)

kebabking said:


> If you're waiting for the perfect candidate, you may be waiting some time...



Approaches to Social Security is my red line, sorry


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2020)

treelover said:


> Approaches to Social Security is my red line, sorry


has Nandy done anything other than mention SS so far? Her record generally doesn't seem to justify thinking she'll be particularly progressive on the issue.


----------



## gosub (Jan 11, 2020)

treelover said:


> Approaches to Social Security is my red line, sorry


A leadership election built round why not rather than why is probably going to tear Labour apart


----------



## andysays (Jan 11, 2020)

treelover said:


> Andy Beckett in the Guardian make it clear that Labour should abandon/forget about the 'traditional working class, gets a lot of recs as well.


Are you, Beckett or anyone else really suggesting or claiming that "adapting to the shifts and disruptions of the modern world" is equivalent to abandoning or forgetting about the "traditional working class"?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 11, 2020)

Humberto said:


> They ought not to be played again, as it was clear they were going to be in the run up to last month's general election. Knowing their place and abiding by the rules that were dictated to them (but didn't apply to the Tories) fucked us. So, don't try and be too clever, just go for the one who is most gifted at twatting the Tories.
> 
> Sell socialism. And get good at it. Set traps for them or allow them to fall into those of their own making and take it from there. In other words: we want someone who will dare to oppose rather than applaud their 'colleagues', who are in fact their enemies. Or at least they are my enemies as well as all the rest of us who get the end of the stick from rich Tories.
> 
> I'd go as far left as possible. And again, don't try and be too clever. Set your stall out and make your case. Seize on their crimes and exploit the political opportunity. Why play nice? THEY aren't nice.



I think the election result made it fairly clear, that by no measure, are all of those who voted for he Conservatives rich.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 11, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> I think the election result made it fairly clear, that by no measure, are all of those who voted for he Conservatives rich.



I meant the government. That's clear I think.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 11, 2020)

British public wants to remain in EU, new poll finds weeks before withdrawal date
					

Remain backed by highly symbolic 52-48 margin




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2020)

andysays said:


> Are you, Beckett or anyone else really suggesting or claiming that "adapting to the shifts and disruptions of the modern world" is equivalent to abandoning or forgetting about the "traditional working class"?


Did you read the effing thing? Stop doing this.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 11, 2020)

treelover said:


> Ah, so no issue with her record on social security, etc?


Not aware of that specifically. However I certainly wouldn’t like to see her as a leader, it has to be RLB for me, with no illusions.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2020)

Starmer apparantly has Ben Nunn a private healthcare lobbyist  and Matt Pound the National Coordinator for Labour First who decribed his job within Labour First as to  "organise full-time against the left"  on his election staff.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 11, 2020)

Sir Keir Stürmer


----------



## two sheds (Jan 11, 2020)

A career as a Sun subed awaits you


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 11, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> and Matt Pound the National Coordinator for Labour First who decribed his job within Labour First as to "organise full-time against the left"



funny how they only get worked up about 'factions' like momentum...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2020)

two sheds said:


> A career as a Sun subed awaits you


Reminder: eye test - I read that as 'a career on a sunbed'.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 12, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Starmer apparantly has Ben Nunn a private healthcare lobbyist  and Matt Pound the National Coordinator for Labour First who decribed his job within Labour First as to  "organise full-time against the left"  on his election staff.


Starmer's campaign chief is Simon Fletcher, prominent left-winger and Corbyn's former chief of staff.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Starmer's campaign chief is Simon Fletcher, prominent left-winger and Corbyn's former chief of staff.


On one hand its quite a confusing alliance of staffers isnt it?  Although on the other quite fitting for a unity candidate who has said "We are not going to trash the last Labour government… nor are we going to trash the last four years [under Jeremy Corbyn]" and  “An end to factionalism”, “an end to factions” . He's begining to fit the Kinnock role as Smokeandsteam described him in more than one way.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2020)

Yes, Starmer is clearly making his pitch as a sort of unity candidate able to 'bridge the gap' between the left and centre. 

What's depressing, but unsurprising, is that so many that got mugged previously - by Kinnock, Blair, Miliband, the LDs - are volunteering to get mugged again.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2020)

Labour hopeful Keir Starmer on loss, leadership and class warfare
					

One of the current frontrunners in the Labour leadership contest talks to the M.E.N about why Labour lost - and his diagnosis




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
				



This article/interview doesnt reveal a lot but it does reveal a couple of things 1) He's clearly the  Greater Manchester Labour Council's candidate of choice and I suspect will be in  Yorkshire 2)  Its a careful courting 'unity' campaign that wants to avoid attacking other candidates 3)There wont be any continuity Corbynism ( just the spirit of it), the  2019 manifesto is up for grabs bar one or  two key pledges. 3) the 'championing' towns/cities in the North not commentating on them is seen as the way to win back Tory voters and will be the attack line against Johnson in those areas ie put your money and support where your mouth is.
Interesting about Rayners comments, Angela Rayner launches bid to become Labour Party deputy leader  she has a good chance of getting the Deputy position. Former DPP as leader ( naturally) and ex care assistant as deputy.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2020)

I think that analysis is on the money The39thStep.

If you can't read between the lines on these statements and see where he intends to go then you are blind


> And then the careful critique kicks in: “The 2017 manifesto needs to be translated into something relevant to lives in the 2020s and 2030s, because I think profoundly believe that Labour wins when it is able to glimpse the future, show people what the future looks like and actually persuade people there’s a better future there.”





> “It is perfectly legitimate for a democratic government to say we will support good businesses and work with good businesses, but there are rules of the game.
> 
> “Just to give an example of the ones I think are most important: what has bedevilled productivity is short term investment. So one of the rules of the game - one of the things I would put in place as leader of the Labour Party - is a framework that incentivises long term investment and disincentivises short term investment.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 12, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Labour hopeful Keir Starmer on loss, leadership and class warfare
> 
> 
> One of the current frontrunners in the Labour leadership contest talks to the M.E.N about why Labour lost - and his diagnosis
> ...



It is good to see a Labour big wig admit not only that family members voted Brexit (presumably not fascists/racists) but also how badly Labour’s position and approach was received in communities like hers.

I like Rayner - she clearly gets it. Whether she’s got the wherewithal, or would have the opportunity as deputy, to shift the LP away from its developing delusional conclusions about what has gone wrong is a different matter though


----------



## ska invita (Jan 12, 2020)

There's been repeated Shouldve Done This or That Re Brexit chat the last few days - and of course before that, and before that and before that too.
I think it was Proper Tidy who linked to the very good Salvage postportem. I think on this issue of what should Labour have done re Brexit in hindsight they are exactly right - options were lose lose, or lose some more. Brexit was unsolveable for Labour - and the tendency to say I Was Right Where's My Apology is ........wrong.
Its a long piece so C&Ping it across two posts. It could be longer though - easy to forget the daily stages that happened.








						‘It’s in the Air, It’s in Your Bones’: Notes on an Aftermath - Salvage
					

It is possible that this would always, no matter what Brexit position was taken, when and how, have been the death knell of the parliamentary road to survival.




					salvage.zone
				




1.


> Amid the left post-mortems, certain tendencies are emerging.
> 
> Perhaps most clear is a cluster of takes from proponents of Left Brexit – ‘Lexiters’ ranging from supporters for leave in principle under all circumstances, those who thought Labour should have campaigned to leave in the first place, to the heavy-hearted remain-supporters who advocated a pro-democratic stance after the referendum. Ian Lavery has suggested that Labour should have tactically voted through May’s deal as a least-bad option when it was offered. As Ronan Burtenshaw puts it in _Tribune_, one of the strategic mistakes, if not the key, was to stand ‘against the democratic mandate on Brexit’ – the party’s shift between 2017 and 2019 to a second-referendum position. Whatever its particulars, such a shift did not honour the 2016 referendum, and could be understood and depicted as anti-democratic, and in any case would always have been seen as far closer to Remain than Leave. Given the losses in Leave seats, and given that Labour’s Brexit position gave Johnson space to audaciously position himself as pro-democracy, working in the interests of the people, and to position Corbyn as their enemy, there is a clear intuitive sense to this position.
> 
> ...


----------



## ska invita (Jan 12, 2020)

2.


> In some principled Lexiters, no matter how judicious and careful they are about the analysis of class in the abstract, is in their pro-Brexitism a discernible nostalgia for the very traditional, ‘cultural’ or ‘income-based’ theories of class they would rightly criticise in others. Ash Sarkar persuasively contested John Curtice’s argument that Labour had become a party of the young rather than of the working class by pointing out the changing intersections of demographics, employment and income, to insist that his was a category error. And yet there are clear strains of such a position in Burtenshaw’s claim that ‘[a]s party memberships exploded in London and the South East, they were often stagnant in the very “heartlands” we lost … Labour lost not because it was _too much _of a working-class party, but because it was _too little _of one, in too few areas’. Of course, we would never disagree that it should always be more of a working-class party in more areas. But missing from this is the sense that the explosion of membership in the south might _also _be in substantial part of the working class – but a working class different from the traditionalist horny-handed-sons-of-toil image. This implicit culturalist workerism becomes explicit in Philip Cunliffe’s description, on the podcast _Aufhebunga Bunga_, of what he perceives from the Labour Party as a ‘shift towards a particular middle class, which is to say academics, cosmopolitan-minded academics, pro-EU areas of the country, and students’: to be a ‘pro-EU area’, seemingly to be ‘pro-EU’, is here _definitionally_ to be middle-class, a position both circular in terms of justification for Lexit, and idealist in terms of theorising class. Missing, to go further, is any understanding of how the pro-Remain affiliation of many of these new, yes, in large numbers working-class, Labour members and supporters, _is a class-inflected position._ Such a position reflects the nature of class, culturally, politically, economically, professionally, as they experience it, no less than do the pro-Leave inclinations of a worker in the heartlands.
> 
> The point is not that one or the other of these is necessarily ‘correct’ class-for-itself class consciousness: it is that the Manichean Lexiter positing that Leave was, when you get down to brass tacks, the ‘real’ class vote, effaces the class consciousness of the multi-ethnic southern and urban working class – and any strategy to win back the heartlands that does not treat that other constituency as no less valuable, not ‘really’ working class, is ultimately nostalgic.
> 
> ...


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It is good to see a Labour big wig admit not only that family members voted Brexit (presumably not fascists/racists) but also how badly Labour’s position and approach was received in communities like hers.
> 
> I like Rayner - she clearly gets it. Whether she’s got the wherewithal, or would have the opportunity as deputy, to shift the LP away from its developing delusional conclusions about what has gone wrong is a different matter though


I've known her for years, good socialist but a product of, and largely  loyal to and reliant on  North West Trade Unions and Labour.I do like the fact her election launch was in Adswood , its one of the top three deprived wards in Stockport.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 12, 2020)

What’s with them all falling over themselves with this BoDs  10 pointer


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 12, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> What’s with them all falling over themselves with this BoDs  10 pointer



I like the one about how potential Labour leaders will have to confirm that they'll only deal with the 'main community ogranisations' and not with individuals or 'fringe groups'.

So, in order to prove she's not an antisemite, Rebecca Long Bailey has agreed not to talk to any Jews.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 12, 2020)

Yes what could be more reassuring than the rise of The Broad Church. Good omens.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 12, 2020)

Wilf said:


> What amazes me (but probably shouldn't) is that after Labour's growing disappearance in working class towns, after the Brexit vote, even after the gen election, people on here are still posing the problem as 'how should Labour do little more than pull the levers to the point where people vote differently in 5 years'.  Rather than thinking about the party in a deep relationship with voters - something set in day to day life, in places - something that finally moves beyond the idea of the party as the place where politics and power are done, paradoxically, the working class becomes no more than a herd of people to be corralled (the working class as an extension of the party). Can't say I've been reading the different candidates statements, haven't really imagining Sir Keir Starmer of Emily Thornberry would be planning to extend and shift the party towards being a social movement tbh. But, from what I've seen, the left has been just as bad. Rebecca Long Bailey's thing that said the word 'community' every paragraph was  a garbled mishmash of contradictory ideas that showed nothing had really changed.  Things are going to be fucking awful and all the Labour Party will have will be something slightly to the left (or right) of Ed Miliband, but with added 'patriotism'.
> 
> Edit: not aimed at the post above, just a generic wail of despair.



I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:

"Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"

Others have refered back to how the Lab party was originally founded, and late-Victorian self-help/workers education...  

Does anyone see this as a way forward now?  My gut instinct is to be dubious of it all in practice..  not sure it would happen, not clear how it would translate into politics..


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 12, 2020)

Hollis said:


> I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:
> 
> "Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"
> 
> ...



I think a party doing this stuff and becoming central to working class lives through actions, and - going beyond the doing things for the poor stuff above - empowering people to take action to improve things for them and theirs, the self help and workers education you refer to, would be fantastic. I don't think the labour party is capable of it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2020)

Yep. That sums up my thoughts exactly Proper Tidy


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2020)

Interestingly enough Nandy in one of her videos made a very good point about communities finding solutions to problems, community owned projects funded and supported by a Labour Councils rather than top down services.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 12, 2020)

Hollis said:


> I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:
> 
> "Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"
> 
> ...



We can do all that good stuff without labour party branding. More effectively too, because it will look like solidarity for its own sake and not like shallow bribery.

It is time for this phase of hoping against hope that the labour party will somehow be a genuinely progressive force to end. Time to shitcan labour for good IMHO. If Long-Bailey is the radical left candidate then frankly they've shitcanned themselves already.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> We can do all that good stuff without labour party branding. More effectively too, because it will look like solidarity for its own sake and not like shallow bribery.
> 
> It is time for this phase of hoping against hope that the labour party will somehow be a genuinely progressive force to end. Time to shitcan labour for good IMHO. If Long-Bailey is the radical left candidate then frankly they've shitcanned themselves already.



I'd normally feel some sort of duty to mutter something about ultra leftism at this point but yeah basically agree.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 12, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Interestingly enough Nandy in one of her videos made a very good point about communities finding solutions to problems, community owned projects funded and supported by a Labour Councils rather than top down services.



I’m still making my mind up about Nandy. She seems to have some good ideas and is clearly capable and professional. But, she also comes over a bit career politician and sometimes her politics reek of soft leftism


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2020)

Hollis said:


> I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:
> 
> "Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"
> 
> ...


I don't think it's primarily or initially about doing something that has a policy endpoint. It's about establishing the party in working class places/life. It's also, of course, a way of resisting, a form of self protection and the rest. But on policy, the ideal of this 'community focused party' model would be to have action rooted in and determined by the working class, something that may not 'fit within' the party, a case of not being fussed whether things fit within. The ideal would some kind of synergy (I hate that word) between the extra party social movement and the party.  All of that is deliberately vague, the act of establishing the party in working class can't be a top down act or pre-written - nor can the policy outcomes.  The important thing is to do it - and even before that, to grasp that that is what needs to be done (not something we are a centimetre nearer at the moment).

The other thing I'd add is that whilst the examples given are usually about things like foodbanks and benefits advice, it shouldn't just be aimed at the very poorest or those in the most precarious positions.  It's about the wider working class (a.k.a. _the working class!)_ in different settings.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2020)

I suppose this is about reaching the limits of Corbynism. Electorally, the limits have been reached for the next 5 years, probably 10. But this leadership debate is a confirmation that the political imagination of the Labour left was never going to expand - and hasn't, even at the point where Labour has clearly lost whole swathes of the country. The things I was on about ^ were never going to happen and never will, even in a dilute form. Corbynism was about social democracy and _being a party_.  Whether those who joined/rejoined Labour on the back of Corbyn's victory leave is of course up to them. But there should be no kidding yourself that it's going to happen under Nandy, Long-Bailey or similar.  Why waste your energy fighting the good fight against... Sir Keir Starmer.


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2020)

ska invita said:


> 2.




What will people like in salvage do if  labour moves more towards the danish social democrats which are pretty robust on immigration,. yet have taken the left parties with them,


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2020)

Hollis said:


> I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:
> 
> "Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"
> 
> ...



This is how the German SPD operated pre 1930's, though huge industrial/trade union base then.


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2020)

Hollis said:


> I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:
> 
> "Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"
> 
> ...





treelover said:


> This is how the German SPD operated pre 1930's, though huge industrial/trade union base then.



I absolutely do, but also give people tools and confidence things on themselves, big issue, as many here point out, it would mean in practice taking on local labour councils, etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 12, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Interestingly enough Nandy in one of her videos made a very good point about communities finding solutions to problems, community owned projects funded and supported by a Labour Councils rather than top down services.



My New Labour Council says that is what its doing.

The reality is somewhat different.

Secondly my New Labour Council is a Coop Council.  This dates back to the days of Blair. The leader of Labour in Lambeth Steve Reed (now an MP) launch the idea of Coop Councils.

The idea behind it was that the Welfare state set up after WW2 was out of date. That "top down" services lead to "welfare dependency". That a return to "self Help" and "mutuals" would be a return to proper Labour values.

I am involved i a couple of local community organisations. I remember one of the 100% Blaiirte Cllrs telling me to stop moaning about a service ( I paid for btw) and put forward a plan to run it ourselves.

The whole idea was almost the same as Cameron's "Big Society". As Steve Reed said the move was to change local Councils from "providers" to "enablers"

In practise it was the part privatisation of services. It was also dumping imo a lot of responsibility on time strapped local residents with in practise minimall support from Council . If not hostile attitude from senior officers.

Also in practise it didn't work that well. The Lambeth Council have had to take Council housing management back in-house. Any service run by a "provider" when contract runs out decision will be made with an option to take back in-house. That is a recent change of heart by the Council.

Given the dire inequality in central London there is a case for bringing back a form of Municipal Socialism.

At one point ,Sadiq when he was the new and  radical the Mayor of London, was talking about setting up an energy company to deal with fuel poverty. That didn't last

Community groups can only struggle to hold the line. They cant imo be expected to run services long term on their own.




















.


----------



## Thenorthwood (Jan 12, 2020)

Can't see it matters who gets elected . Boris in for ten years maybe more


----------



## marshall (Jan 12, 2020)

Yep, most of the people on this board will b pushing up daisies before there's another Labour govt.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 12, 2020)

Hollis said:


> I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:
> 
> "Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"
> 
> ...






Hollis said:


> I've been reading similar on twitter - i.e what can Labour do to help people:  for example:
> 
> "Why isn't Labour running food banks? Offering debt advice? Housing advice? Welfare advice? Why aren't labour MP surgeries the 1st stop for ppls problems with phone lines & volunteer teams? We don't need to trick working ppl into supporting _us_, we need to support _them_!"
> 
> ...



To be fair to my local Ward Cllrs and MPs they have big case load dealing with issues like housing. Kate Hoey MP was particularly good with dealing with constituents problems. My Ward Cllrs have a lot to deal with in a deprived ward like mine in Lambeth. (London).

Its that its not something public necessarily gets to hear about.

Any inner London Council ward / constituency has big case load. Immigration is one area for inner London MPs- issues with problems with Home Office for example.

Trouble is a lot of people assume being a Ward Cllr or MP is a gravy train . Its not. Particularly for Ward Cllrs .


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2020)

Thenorthwood said:


> Can't see it matters who gets elected . Boris in for ten years maybe more


Things can change quickly in terms of the polls, votes and the rest, but yes. Which all should shift the emphasis onto finding ways to actually lock horns with neoliberalism and the Tories (rather than focusing on whether some Labour Mp or other might step up and start doing things that neither they nor their party have ever shown any signs of doing. Having said that, everything feels flat and defeated, not many green shoots outside of parliament. A really fucking shit time.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 12, 2020)

I understand it's a pessimistic time but why do people think tories will have ten years, what's the reasoning here


----------



## Thenorthwood (Jan 12, 2020)

Ten years because Labour blame defeat on Brexit and MSM and don't face the likelihood that the country doesn't like far left policies.


----------



## treelover (Jan 12, 2020)

marshall said:


> Yep, most of the people on this board will b pushing up daisies before there's another Labour govt.



Nice..


----------



## kebabking (Jan 13, 2020)

treelover said:


> Nice..



Its probably hyperbolic, but it's not far off.

A good way of grasping the size of the problem is to take out a piece of paper and write out 'by the time of the next election, the only Labour leader to have won a majority in the _lifetime_ of anyone under the age of 50, is Blair'.

Then say it out loud.

That's not a clarion call for the resurrection of the Tanned One, it's a way of spelling out how bad the situation is.

Long Bailey appears (so far) utterly uninspiring and barely running, Starmer - regardless of what he's actually saying - sounds like he's saying _meh meh meh_, Phillips sounds like she's half cut...

I don't hold a particular flame for Nandy and I know little of the details of her specific political beliefs - it's very possible she holds views with which I fundamentally disagree - but she's so far the stand out candidate in terms of her ability to have ideas and articulate them.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 13, 2020)

Anyway, this Labour. Still got the love-in with weapons of mass destruction? Or can we start to give a fuck about them?


----------



## xenon (Jan 13, 2020)

Thenorthwood said:


> Ten years because Labour blame defeat on Brexit and MSM and don't face the likelihood that the country doesn't like far left policies.



 What far left policies don’t they like?  I mean I don’t remember hearing much about these far left policies. The thing about abolishing private schools, that wasn’t actually in the manifesto.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Long Bailey appears (so far) utterly uninspiring and barely running, Starmer - regardless of what he's actually saying - sounds like he's saying _meh meh meh_, Phillips sounds like she's half cut...



That's a pretty accurate summary. But you forgot the glaring narcissism of Lewis and the offensive condescension of Thornberry.

I agree with you that Nandy seems intellectually ahead of the rest of them. She actually also seems to want the job. Does RLB? If so, she's got a strange way of going about it. Lacklustre, bland, defensive and flat. I presume the tactic is to keep her covered up and rely on Momentum members to do the job in the ballot?


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

it's a pretty shit tactic if that is the plan, considering how far behind Starmer she is.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 13, 2020)

I wondered if, given the absence of any kind of public campaign, she was spending her time trying to produce some form of Unite/Momentum based stitch up?

No criticism of The Great Leader, and no interaction with/compromise for, those outside that bubble?


----------



## YouSir (Jan 13, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That's a pretty accurate summary. But you forgot the glaring narcissism of Lewis and the offensive condescension of Thornberry.
> 
> I agree with you that Nandy seems intellectually ahead of the rest of them. She actually also seems to want the job. Does RLB? If so, she's got a strange way of going about it. Lacklustre, bland, defensive and flat. I presume the tactic is to keep her covered up and rely on Momentum members to do the job in the ballot?



Momentum doesn't have the numbers to decide anything. The reliance is far more on bitterness among the wider membership over the way Corbyn was treated, people will vote for the closest thing because they resent the PLP.

Anyways, none of them seem particularly good, I'm maintaining my membership to vote but probably quitting after.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

A unite/momentum based stitch up isn't enough by itself, so again it would have been a shit tactic. The corbynite left will remain a strong current in the Labour party, but the bulk of the membership are not currently with them IME.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 13, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I wondered if, given the absence of any kind of public campaign, she was spending her time trying to produce some form of Unite/Momentum based stitch up?
> 
> No criticism of The Great Leader, and no interaction with/compromise for, those outside that bubble?



Same level of Momentum conspiracy making as came from the press over the past few years. They can organise well enough but day to day they're not controlling the majority of rank and file members, it's just the right of the party and the press who revel in painting them as some kind of collective Rasputin bringing down poor, innocent Centrist Labour types.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> A unite/momentum based stitch up isn't enough by itself, so again it would have been a shit tactic. The corbynite left will remain a strong current in the Labour party, but the bulk of the membership are not currently with them IME.



I didn't say I thought it was was an election winner, I'm trying to come up with a reason outside of being a political half-wit that she would be barely running an overt campaign.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

That would be the reason of a political half-wit though.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Jan 13, 2020)

Thenorthwood said:


> Ten years because Labour blame defeat on Brexit and MSM and don't face the likelihood that the country doesn't like far left policies.


There’s no such thing as ‘far left policies’. I remember seeing a slot on some TV programme some years ago, with that tosser Giles Brandreth, called “the secret socialists of Guildford”. He went round a shopping centre asking people what they thought of all manner of policies, including renationalisation of public utilities, renewable energy etc. Nearly everyone agreed with most of them. Then he told them that the policies were Labour Party ones and the attitudes of the punters changed. All of a sudden they were not so convinced anymore. The policies hadn’t changed one little bit, but their supposed provenance had. That’s the problem.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: *to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate*. I'm not sure that's possible.



If she had any kind of conviction that outweighed her desire to be leader then she would not have this problem, so I've no sympathy for her.

As it stands it's only from second hand sources that anyone is categorising her as a left candidate, or even a Corbynite candidate. She's yet to produce anything that tells me what her position is on anything. All we've had is 'progressive patriotism' or whatever, a phrase clearly invented by a committee of wonks as something which will supposedly appeal to both knuckle-dragging racist brexit voters and enlightened, metropolitan remain voters but which actually appeals to nobody, and is meaningless even by the standards of a country where 'brexit means brexit' counts as robust political analysis.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> If she had any kind of conviction that outweighed her desire to be leader then she would not have this problem, so I've no sympathy for her.


If she didn't want to become leader she wouldn't have this problem? Yeah, I guess so. If she didn't want to become leader I don't suppose she'd be bothering running though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> If she didn't want to become leader she wouldn't have this problem? Yeah, I guess so. If she didn't want to become leader I don't suppose she'd be bothering running though.



I meant, as I suspect you know, that she cares about being leader more than she cares about exactly which platform she needs to stand on to achieve it. Anyone who is thinking ooh, what should my politics be in order to win this thing is already, by definition, the wrong sort of person to win it.

Not that it's only Long-Bailey doing this. They all are. A plague on the lot of them.


----------



## Spandex (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.


But Long-Bailey _is_ the continuity Corbyn candidate. She's got his team around her and her pitch to the membership is basically that she'll keep his policies but be better at it than him. Worrying about positioning and trying to be two things at once is a big part of where Labour went spectacularly wrong over Brexit. People can see through it. She needs to own it and fight convincingly for it. She needs to show how she will be better than Corbyn. Not coming up with gibberish about progressive patriotism and ending up saying nothing.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> it's a pretty shit tactic if that is the plan, considering how far behind Starmer she is.



In what circumstances, given we are talking PLP nominations at this point, could RLB expect to be competitive with Starmer?


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I meant, as I suspect you know, that she cares about being leader more than she cares about exactly which platform she needs to stand on to achieve it. Anyone who is thinking ooh, what should my politics be in order to win this thing is already, by definition, the wrong sort of person to win it.
> 
> Not that it's only Long-Bailey doing this. They all are. A plague on the lot of them.


You're only ever going to win the leadership of a broad church (urgh) political party by appealing to as many of the different factions as possible. Corbyn did this more or less by accident in 2015 - I've seen it argued - and I think it's more or less correct - that he was the 'moderate' candidate in the 2015 - it's just that all the others were running well to the right of the membership.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

Spandex said:


> But Long-Bailey _is_ the continuity Corbyn candidate. She's got his team around her .



She's got some of the team round her. It is clear they are split - hence the Ian Lavery, then Barry Gardiner stories. Hence also abysmal articles claiming that Starmer is on the left. RLB seems weighed own by something, and you have to assume it's this.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In what circumstances, given we are talking PLP nominations at this point, could RLB expect to be competitive with Starmer?


I was talking about the yougov membership poll rather than the PLP noms


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> I was talking about the yougov membership poll rather than the PLP noms



IIRC RLB hadn't even declared when that was carried out. Anyway, my main point is that her campaign seems _weighed dow_n, mired by caution and generally stumbling. 

Given the fact that the resource and intellectual investment by much of the Labour left has been focussed on capturing the Party apparatus I am surprised by how quickly it seems to be crumbling.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

I'm not sure if Long Bailey is running with the progressive patriotism thing btw, it's totally missing from  her campaign launch article in the Tribune. I think it got a lot of push back...


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Anyway, my main point is that her campaign seems _weighed dow_n, mired by caution and generally stumbling.


I don't really disagree with this. She's not a very good candidate.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> I don't really disagree with this. She's not a very good candidate.



She seems to have been chosen because McDonnell liked her rather than because of any discernible leadership qualities. Given the last 4 years it's a bizarre position for the left to have found itself in.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

Hard to work out who else they might have gone for, mind.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.



I sort of agree with this - certainly its what RLB is attempting and I don't think it's likely to work. But wouldn't another way be to honestly praise what was good about Corbyn while critiquing his failures?



killer b said:


> You're only ever going to win the leadership of a broad church (urgh) political party by appealing to as many of the different factions as possible. Corbyn did this more or less by accident in 2015 - I've seen it argued - and I think it's more or less correct - that he was the 'moderate' candidate in the 2015 - it's just that all the others were running well to the right of the membership.



That's one way of understanding why Corbyn won, and its a legitimate analysis. But it's also the case that Corbyn standing drew people towards the party who weren't previously members. By not attempting to triangulate between existing Labour factions Corbyn drew in hundreds of thousands who wanted to become involved to support him. Essentially from the start whether by accident or design he was building support for his leadership outside of the Labour Party. 

Couldn't RLB build credibility and support within and beyond the Labour membership by putting forward the best possible political platform rather than attempting to triangulate between existing Labour factions? For example by acknowledging that Corbynism failed on Brexit and on democratising the party, acknowledging that traditional Labour voters were put off by the Brexit fudge and pitching to open up the party to working class communities?

Not that this will happen obviously but I think the failure on Brexit shows the need to look beyond triangulation between Labour factions.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> Hard to work out who else they might have gone for, mind.



It's possible they had someone who lost their seat in mind, like Pidcock. 

Also possible they just hadn't really thought about it.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

But a) Corbyn comfortably won with the existing membership anyway, and b) there isn't really anyone left outside Labour that a radical left candidate could draw into the party.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2020)

So we have:

Be more racist 
Be more Blairite
Be more press-friendly
Be shifty as fuck 
and 
Be annihilated by the Press again

I'm sure it will all turn out fine.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> But a) Corbyn comfortably won with the existing membership anyway, and b) there isn't really anyone left outside Labour that a radical left candidate could draw into the party.



Huge amount of angry young people waiting, ones who might have voted but aren't particularly 'political' otherwise, although how many would have any faith left in Labour I don't know.


----------



## treelover (Jan 13, 2020)

xenon said:


> What far left policies don’t they like?  I mean I don’t remember hearing much about these far left policies. The thing about abolishing private schools, that wasn’t actually in the manifesto.



No, but it got a heck of a lot of coverage, and did the new left, people like Ash, and the other bloke from Novara


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Its probably hyperbolic, but it's not far off.
> 
> A good way of grasping the size of the problem is to take out a piece of paper and write out 'by the time of the next election, the only Labour leader to have won a majority in the _lifetime_ of anyone under the age of 50, is Blair'.


you're assuming a five year term, which i suggest is unlikely to be the case

tony blair, despite his 1997 landslide, returned to the country in 2001. margaret thatcher never allowed five years to elapse between general elections. look for johnson going to the country in 2023


----------



## treelover (Jan 13, 2020)

> "The NEC has agreed the following timetable for Labour Party Hustings – a great opportunity for you to hear from the candidates in the Leadership and Deputy Leadership Elections.
> 
> You can watch these events online, and you’ll find all the details here as the events take place (you can catch up on them afterwards too). We’ll be sending invites to members nearer the time – so look out for an invite to a hustings near you.
> 
> ...



Why are all the hustings in big cities, apart from Durham, even capitals, not a good look for a party trying to show it wants to bring in towns, etc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

treelover said:


> Why are all the hustings in big cities, apart from Durham, even capitals, not a good look for a party trying to show it wants to bring in towns, etc.



I presume for transport/access reasons? I'm not sure a hustings in Bolsover would bring voters back there to be honest.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 13, 2020)

treelover said:


> Why are all the hustings in big cities, apart from Durham, even capitals, not a good look for a party trying to show it wants to bring in towns, etc.



They're for members, so big population centres/easy to get to. General public barely gives a fuck about this process and has zero say in it anyway.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> But a) Corbyn comfortably won with the existing membership anyway, and b) there isn't really anyone left outside Labour that a radical left candidate could draw into the party.



Come on, there are millions upon millions of people outside the Labour Party that _could_ be drawn into the party and could only be drawn in by a radical left candidate. 

Again, I'm not saying it would be easy or that it would happen but it is possible.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2020)

YouSir said:


> Huge amount of angry young people waiting, ones who might have voted but aren't particularly 'political' otherwise, although how many would have any faith left in Labour I don't know.





SpackleFrog said:


> Come on, there are millions upon millions of people outside the Labour Party that _could_ be drawn into the party and could only be drawn in by a radical left candidate.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying it would be easy or that it would happen but it is possible.


Is there anywhere in the world where membership of a radical left wing political party is anything but a tiny fringe?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I understand it's a pessimistic time but why do people think tories will have ten years, what's the reasoning here


It's certainly an unpredictable time and the tories could fuck Brexit and other stuff up. But for me it's more a case of Labour not sorting themselves out. It's unlikely, but the leadership election _could _produce a reasonably united party and a much more secure leader. But that wouldn't be enough and wouldn't in itself add up to a strategy to 'reclaim' the working class. In fact the very things that would lead to being a united party are probably the things that would stop more inventive strategies to move towards the more class and community strategies discussed here.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> My New Labour Council says that is what its doing.
> 
> The reality is somewhat different.
> 
> ...



Couple of things. Firstly I dont think anyone is talking about main stream council/public services when discussing community led/council enabled or community self sufficient schemes. The Co-op council/Big Society initiatives from Councils were mainly prompted by the fact that the Blair era funding was cut and Councils went through phases using a whole range of initiatives ( which also included outsourcing, combined council or regional wide services, service redesign, systemic thinking, squeezing the third sector , the Council as property developer buying land and building and then flogging them off, and more recently bringing services back in)  .So for all the philosophy ( some of which may make some salient points )and what ever the hype the council budget was the issue not what the community wanted. I visited loads of Councils including Lambeth ,scores of projects and held many focus groups and consultations when I worked on innovation for my own council.
Secondly whilst calls for municipal socialism might evoke memories of George Landsbury and Poplar Council , Council services by and large are top down with little or no connection to communities. , very often based on meeting targets and aligned to funding meeting targets and rarely involve users or residents in their design or delivery of services. Nandy quoted the Sure Start centres  and its interesting that despite delivering a valued service ( mainly to savings in the NHS)   their closures weren't greeted by picket lines of staff and users and the local community up in arms. I can remember in my borough residents wanting to use the Sure Start centre at the weekends for childrens play activities, it was denied as they dont open Saturdays. A fathers group wanted to use a centre , denied because it didnt correspond with the targets set for Sure Start. So from being community based centres offering local service they became centres that actually excluded the community.  I think the point she was making is that often communities know what they want , come up with ideas but unless they fit in the councils view of how it should be done they dont happen. So I agree with her when she talks about a sense of ownership or that things could be done differently.
Thirdly her point was not that community groups should be expected to run services long term on their own ( although actually most boroughs will have long standing community groups that have run local projects very often on their  for decades) but that Labour Councils should support them . Councils and partners  can support them by advising on service design, facillitating visits to other projects in other areas, research, pepper corn rents ,opening up spaces at night or weekends subsidised painting decoration or renovation of premises, linking with local business or local chains for funding , business advice,mentoring , volunteering etc etc. Howvere I take your point that equally Councils are very often resistant or unwilling or dont have the culture to do this.
Lastly or we can go the other way and have projects like Helping Hands in Edinburgh, or the IWCA Athetics Club and countless other community owned and led iniatives.  What isn't on the cards is municipal socialism.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.


I'm sure that's right, but the fact that she hasn't got anything in terms of policy or 'vision' that breaks through that conundrum is the bigger problem (with regard to the vote, maybe but even more so in  terms of what kind of leader she would be).


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> FWIW I think Long-Bailey has the most difficult job of the leadership contenders, so it's not surprising her campaign has been shaky so far: to win she needs to position herself convincingly as both the continuity corbynite candidate, but also not the continuity corbynite candidate. I'm not sure that's possible.



Damn straight, she needs some real killer tactics to get around that.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> Is there anywhere in the world where membership of a radical left wing political party is anything but a tiny fringe?


I suspect the thinking that's going on at the moment is no more than RLB will do x, momentum will do y aided by a nudge x from McDonnell. Once the nominations are done they'll recalibrate that to get the membership vote for her. And then... dunno. None of that breaks the habits of the past, thinks about building something new or, at the most pragmatic level, wins back seats like Bolsover or Redcar.  Corbyn already had a mass membership and did nothing interesting or creative with it, I don't see the momentum/RLB project doing much better.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 13, 2020)

Real.
(about 2 mins into her 'live' question-time earlier today with James O'Brien.)


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 13, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Real.
> (about 2 mins into her 'live' question-time earlier today with James O'Brien.)



Or a skinned knee or a messy divorce or something...


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2020)

Labours Euro MPs nominations for Leader: Starmer 6, Philips 2, Thornberry 1, not known 1.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2020)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 13, 2020)

billy_bob said:


> Or a skinned knee or a messy divorce or something...


Bigger than the Beatles.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

What sort of politics leads you to 'lend your vote' to Emily Thornberry ffs?


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 13, 2020)

The39thStep is that the same graphic three times? Don't want to spend any longer than I already have poring over the differences, if so.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2020)

billy_bob said:


> The39thStep is that the same graphic three times? Don't want to spend any longer than I already have poring over the differences, if so.


Sorry yes, pressed full size too many times.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 13, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What sort of politics leads you to 'lend your vote' to Emily Thornberry ffs?



Shits and giggles?

Or even Shiraz?


----------



## treelover (Jan 13, 2020)

Starmer's last act as DPP was to create a ten year tarriff for benefit fraud, more than some violent crimes.

though not sure if that was for conspiracy, eg, gangs doing it.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 13, 2020)

treelover said:


> Starmer's last act as DPP was to create a ten year tarriff for benefit fraud, more than some violent crimes.
> 
> though not sure if that was for conspiracy, eg, gangs doing it.



It does seem that (organised higher-level fraud) was the focus of it, although it's not clear whether its use for more minor 'offences' was precluded: Benefit cheats face 10 years in prison as Keir Starmer sets out


----------



## kebabking (Jan 13, 2020)

treelover said:


> Starmer's last act as DPP was to create a ten year tarriff for benefit fraud, more than some violent crimes.
> 
> though not sure if that was for conspiracy, eg, gangs doing it.



Eh?

DPP/CPS don't set tarrifs. The Sentancing council, the Court of Appeal and - of course - parliament set tarrifs.

I admire your dedication to the causes that fire you up, but I do wonder if sometimes you're so ready for a fight you believe pretty much anything that gets put in front of you regardless of how silly it is...


----------



## chilango (Jan 13, 2020)

Tbh I'm really struggling* to give a fuck about this pantomime.


*as in I'm not struggling at all. I really don't care.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 13, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What sort of politics leads you to 'lend your vote' to Emily Thornberry ffs?



heres one answer


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 13, 2020)

'Whittome' appears to be a contraction of 'What is the point of me'


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 13, 2020)

ska invita said:


> heres one answer




it’s not a very good one.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 13, 2020)

Labour party led by a Sir is pretty much taking the piss out of how little long term effect the 2015-19 era had isn't it. In many ways it's sad and in many ways it's lol


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 13, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Couple of things. Firstly I dont think anyone is talking about main stream council/public services when discussing community led/council enabled or community self sufficient schemes. The Co-op council/Big Society initiatives from Councils were mainly prompted by the fact that the Blair era funding was cut and Councils went through phases using a whole range of initiatives ( which also included outsourcing, combined council or regional wide services, service redesign, systemic thinking, squeezing the third sector , the Council as property developer buying land and building and then flogging them off, and more recently bringing services back in)  .So for all the philosophy ( some of which may make some salient points )and what ever the hype the council budget was the issue not what the community wanted. I visited loads of Councils including Lambeth ,scores of projects and held many focus groups and consultations when I worked on innovation for my own council.
> Secondly whilst calls for municipal socialism might evoke memories of George Landsbury and Poplar Council , Council services by and large are top down with little or no connection to communities. , very often based on meeting targets and aligned to funding meeting targets and rarely involve users or residents in their design or delivery of services. Nandy quoted the Sure Start centres  and its interesting that despite delivering a valued service ( mainly to savings in the NHS)   their closures weren't greeted by picket lines of staff and users and the local community up in arms. I can remember in my borough residents wanting to use the Sure Start centre at the weekends for childrens play activities, it was denied as they dont open Saturdays. A fathers group wanted to use a centre , denied because it didnt correspond with the targets set for Sure Start. So from being community based centres offering local service they became centres that actually excluded the community.  I think the point she was making is that often communities know what they want , come up with ideas but unless they fit in the councils view of how it should be done they dont happen. So I agree with her when she talks about a sense of ownership or that things could be done differently.
> Thirdly her point was not that community groups should be expected to run services long term on their own ( although actually most boroughs will have long standing community groups that have run local projects very often on their  for decades) but that Labour Councils should support them . Councils and partners  can support them by advising on service design, facillitating visits to other projects in other areas, research, pepper corn rents ,opening up spaces at night or weekends subsidised painting decoration or renovation of premises, linking with local business or local chains for funding , business advice,mentoring , volunteering etc etc. Howvere I take your point that equally Councils are very often resistant or unwilling or dont have the culture to do this.
> Lastly or we can go the other way and have projects like Helping Hands in Edinburgh, or the IWCA Athetics Club and countless other community owned and led iniatives.  What isn't on the cards is municipal socialism.





I notice that Lisa Nandy is now saying that Councils should be allowed to set up their own bus companies. 









						'Councils must have the power to run bus services for people, not profits'
					

Leadership hopeful Lisa Nandy says decade of austerity has forced cuts in bus services - but Labour councils like Nottingham have produced very successful long-term plans for public transport networks




					www.mirror.co.uk
				




So she's is in favour of Councils having much bigger role in local communities. 

What she objected to was foregrounding rail re nationalisation so much at last election. Which she didn't see as it as that relevant to the people she represents. But she is all in favour of local Council taking over buses. Fair enough imo. This is a new form of municipal socialism. I don't think doing things like this means literally going back to the days of Lansbury. 

I was chatting last Sunday at a local community project I'm involved in how long we can keep this going. We did it to prove to the Council that there was a demand ( its an adventure playground). The Council officers said there was no demand and the land was therefore available as a "development site". But what is really needed long term is actual support from the Council as you outline in your post. Not having to lobby and argue all the time. This is wearing. It is also not feasible to expect locals to run a complicated service like a playground without support from the local Council long term. 

Also local Cllrs in my borough ( Lambeth) can't publicly support community projects in case they get into trouble with the local leadership. They are only allowed to support local stuff if given permission by the leadership. So no campaigning for local Labour Cllrs. Which is ridiculous imo. To root itself in local communities at the very least local Cllrs should be able to do that. 

As Nandy says politics has to be relevant to ordinary working people who are only just getting by. ( which is most of us). So how local Labour Councils operate should be the backbone of the party.

Council run services can be done in non top down way. I'm on the user group for my local leisure centre. Its been up and down with Council put its possible to have Council run services with local input. Leisure centre was under threat a while back ( the land its on is worth a lot) Then local residents did turn up to shout at the Council leader and senior officers and they backed down. So people will sometimes defend a local asset.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2020)

ska invita said:


> heres one answer




Oh gods, and I had such high hopes for her


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I notice that Lisa Nandy is now saying that Councils should be allowed to set up their own bus companies.



Pretty sure they can already. Here in Nottingham the main bus company is city-owned.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2020)

They can if they already exist - they are no longer allowed to establish new ones.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> Is there anywhere in the world where membership of a radical left wing political party is anything but a tiny fringe?



You could argue Podemos and Labour, could you not? Depending on how far you want to stretch your definition of radical left.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 14, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Labour party led by a Sir is pretty much taking the piss out of how little long term effect the 2015-19 era had isn't it. In many ways it's sad and in many ways it's lol



It's taking the piss out of how little long-term effect the 1900-2019 era had, tbf.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> You could argue Podemos and Labour, could you not? Depending on how far you want to stretch your definition of radical left.


You could argue this if you like, but then why aren't those millions and millions you spoke of thirsting for a radical left party already in Labour (membership 500,00) or Podemos (membership 170,000)?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> You could argue this if you like, but then why aren't those millions and millions you spoke of thirsting for a radical left party already in Labour (membership 500,00) or Podemos (membership 170,000)?



To be fair, in neither case have either of those parties made much of an offer to those people to join. Both Iglesias and Corbyn have somewhat dimmed their radical credentials in the process of leading their respective parties. 

All I'm saying is that it's possible to put together a pitch that mobilises people beyond the existing membership. In the case of Corbyn for example whenever he was attacked new waves of people joined to defend his leadership ie Owen Smith challenge, 2017 election.

I'm not sure we will agree, I think with the Labour position on Brexit you saw it as neccessary to triangulate between the existing membership, resulting in the fudge position, and I thought it was possible to do something different. I'm just saying that I think theoretically, it could be possible for example for RLB to run a campaign geared towards a more confrontational approach to the labour right, based on democratising the party and appealing to people outside the Labour Party to join on the promise that the membership would have some real control over their MP's and what the party did. Even if it were not possible to win the leadership on this basis it would move the debate in a more positive direction.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 14, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Oh gods, and I had such high hopes for her


It's not such a big deal, Emily will be out of the race sharpish and the practice of getting people on the ballot for the sake of it seems common practice... Such as Corbyns nomination by...I forget her name... Margaret Hodge?


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> To be fair, in neither case have either of those parties made much of an offer to those people to join. Both Iglesias and Corbyn have somewhat dimmed their radical credentials in the process of leading their respective parties.
> 
> All I'm saying is that it's possible to put together a pitch that mobilises people beyond the existing membership. In the case of Corbyn for example whenever he was attacked new waves of people joined to defend his leadership ie Owen Smith challenge, 2017 election.
> 
> I'm not sure we will agree, I think with the Labour position on Brexit you saw it as neccessary to triangulate between the existing membership, resulting in the fudge position, and I thought it was possible to do something different. I'm just saying that I think theoretically, it could be possible for example for RLB to run a campaign geared towards a more confrontational approach to the labour right, based on democratising the party and appealing to people outside the Labour Party to join on the promise that the membership would have some real control over their MP's and what the party did. Even if it were not possible to win the leadership on this basis it would move the debate in a more positive direction.


My current view is that the left had one shot at making these kinds of changes to the Labour Party, and it's done. I doubt on reflection that it was ever possible.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

ska invita said:


> It's not such a big deal, Emily will be out of the race sharpish and the practice of getting people on the ballot for the sake of it seems common practice... Such as Corbyns nomination by...I forget her name... Margaret Hodge?



Margert Beckett I think?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> My current view is that the left had one shot at making these kinds of changes to the Labour Party, and it's done. I doubt on reflection that it was ever possible.



Fair enough, I mean we'll never know since they didn't really try. But I think they should have tried since even if it were not possible in Labour it would have laid some of the groundwork for something new.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I like Rayner - she clearly gets it. Whether she’s got the wherewithal, or would have the opportunity as deputy, to shift the LP away from its developing delusional conclusions about what has gone wrong is a different matter though



Anyone who failed to vote against the 2015 Welfare Reform Bill has zero credibility.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, I mean we'll never know since they didn't really try.


what makes you think this?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 14, 2020)

The Corbyn clique with the parliamentary party was always tiny, that's why the likes of burgon and long-bailey could rise up the ranks.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> My current view is that the left had one shot at making these kinds of changes to the Labour Party, and it's done. I doubt on reflection that it was ever possible.


Definitely a massive lost opportunity. If being kind, too much on the back foot dealing with crisis, but maybe never had the vision in the first place. It was possible, anything is possible, but there wasn't even an attempt that I heard of.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 14, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Definitely a massive lost opportunity. If being kind, too much on the back foot dealing with crisis, but maybe never had the vision in the first place. It was possible, anything is possible, but there wasn't even an attempt that I heard of.



Being unkind, they chose to take that back foot. From early on in Corbyn's tenure, McDonnell had economic plans which, while not revolutionary, represented movement in a positive direction - but so little was said publicly about them that barely anyone outside the favoured few within the membership itself would have known much about them. No wonder many people reacted to the latest manifesto like it was some fantasy wishlist that had just fallen from the sky. And they should have been more confrontational from the very start with the elements within the party and beyond who were working against them for their own vested interests/reasons.

Maybe they'd have done that and still failed for reasons beyond their own control. But at least they'd have done what was within their control.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 14, 2020)

The final line up is like a cast of jobbing actors queueing up for a minor part in an ITV adaptation of a forgotten Barry Hines novel.

About as inspiring as a damp cardboard sandwich.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 14, 2020)

Started of a discussion about the BoD directives and the leadership thing on local party favebook

A day later post locked all messages deleted despite none being in anyway inflammatory

The level of witch hunt fear is ridiculous


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2020)

Sure, they have no reason for being a bit jumpy about discussions on antisemitism and related.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2020)

billy_bob said:


> Being unkind, they chose to take that back foot. From early on in Corbyn's tenure, McDonnell had economic plans which, while not revolutionary, represented movement in a positive direction - but so little was said publicly about them that barely anyone outside the favoured few within the membership itself would have known much about them. No wonder many people reacted to the latest manifesto like it was some fantasy wishlist that had just fallen from the sky. And they should have been more confrontational from the very start with the elements within the party and beyond who were working against them for their own vested interests/reasons.
> 
> Maybe they'd have done that and still failed for reasons beyond their own control. But at least they'd have done what was within their control.



John had a number of meetings with anti-welfare reform campaigners, planned to prosecute Smith, a review, lots of positive ideas around social security, none of it really saw the light of day till the manifesto,


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 14, 2020)

treelover said:


> John had a number of meetings with anti-welfare reform campaigners, planned to prosecute Smith, a review, lots of positive ideas around social security, none of it really saw the light of day till the manifesto,



I know - that's the stuff I meant. mrs_bob's a member so I was pretty well up on what was going on, but I've tended to find that even most Corbyn-sympathetic habitual Labour voters knew very little about it if they were outside activist circles.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2020)

Does anyone really pay much attention to economic policy outside election campaigns? That Alternative Models of Ownership pamphlet has some genuinely good ideas in it, and they pushed it pretty hard - but that they didn't manage to break through to anyone other than political obsessives isn't really surprising.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> Sure, they have no reason for being a bit jumpy about discussions on antisemitism and related.



Just asking questions... 

The local FB politics page is full of this shit - all with their hashtags and symbols - they just can't leave it alone. These people are broadly split between being openly anti-Semitic or so irredeemably politically deaf and blind that the LP would be well shot of them. Cleverly, one of them is the media officer for a CLP.

Very occasionally someone begs them to to just shut up, but they can't - the definition of a fanatic is one who can't change the subject.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> Does anyone really pay much attention to economic policy outside election campaigns? That Alternative Models of Ownership pamphlet has some genuinely good ideas in it, and they pushed it pretty hard - but that they didn't manage to break through to anyone other than political obsessives isn't really surprising.



Pamphlets, no. There must be more imaginative ways to get a message across that would have some impact if used on an ongoing basis, though.  I'm talking about the big ideas of it, the alternative narrative - most people are never going to want to read about the minutiae of implementation, and the reception of the 2019 manifesto reinforces the fact that detailed costings aren't what it takes to make something seem plausible anyway.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> what makes you think this?






ska invita said:


> Definitely a massive lost opportunity. If being kind, too much on the back foot dealing with crisis, but maybe never had the vision in the first place. It was possible, anything is possible, but there wasn't even an attempt that I heard of.



Would agree with Ska here and say that there was no attempt I can see. Off the top of my head, I think they changed the process for electing a leader slightly and had a row about whether or not Corbyn should be on the ballot after the VoNC in his leadership. Can't think of any other reforms to the party that they attempted. 

There was never any push for automatic re-selection of MP's, which would have been a simple move that could have dramatically re-balanced power in the party. If memory serves Unite pushed for this at one point but were pressured to back down by Corbyn and his team. Corbyn was still routinely attacked on the issue of automatic re-selection despite the fact he never brought it in. 

That's just one measure, sure, but it would have been game changing and there was a golden opportunity to bring it in in 2017 after Corbyn's unexpected success. 

What makes you think otherwise, if you do?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 14, 2020)

From quite a big bunch of people there was a massive push for automatic re-selection. It just didn't succeed. What they got instead was a compromise where you can hold a local ballot on whether you re-select, which is at least an improvement on no way to re-select at all.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> From quite a big bunch of people there was a massive push for automatic re-selection. It just didn't succeed. What they got instead was a compromise where you can hold a local ballot on whether you re-select, which is at least an improvement on no way to re-select at all.



People talked about it a lot but it didn't actually happen. 

I actually think the 'trigger ballots' are worse because it allows the right to push this bullying narrative.

Plus the endless articles about MP's being 'triggered'.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Just asking questions...
> 
> The local FB politics page is full of this shit - all with their hashtags and symbols - they just can't leave it alone. These people are broadly split between being openly anti-Semitic or so irredeemably politically deaf and blind that the LP would be well shot of them. Cleverly, one of them is the media officer for a CLP.
> 
> Very occasionally someone begs them to to just shut up, but they can't - the definition of a fanatic is one who can't change the subject.



openly anti-Semitic? On Labour face book pages? Screen shot any of it?  who’s definition of anti-Semitic are you referencing

sounds very much like your mind is made up


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2020)

treelover said:


> Starmer's last act as DPP was to create a ten year tarriff for benefit fraud, more than some violent crimes.
> 
> though not sure if that was for conspiracy, eg, gangs doing it.


conspiracy is not by itself a violent crime. for example, i could conspire with you to flypost. you conspire to commit an act, that act not necessarily being violent. 

as for starmer's last act as dpp, he seems to have said 'charge these people under this act not that one' - the maximum sentence (not the tariff) is in this fraud act.

it would be nice if now and again you made some small effort to know what you're talking about.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 14, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> openly anti-Semitic? On Labour face book pages? Screen shot any of it?  who’s definition of anti-Semitic are you referencing
> 
> sounds very much like your mind is made up



local facebook politics page. as i said.

i have made up my mind, yes - i've made up my mind that racists, fanatics, fuckwits and conspiraloons have, by their inability to just shut their fucking holes, _helped_ to cost the LP an election for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> local facebook politics page. as i said.
> 
> i have made up my mind, yes - i've made up my mind that racists, fanatics, fuckwits and conspiraloons have, by their inability to just shut their fucking holes, _helped_ to cost the LP an election for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.



Have you met sassaferato he also posts In the flavour of some floridly meaningless army rumour website knobber,


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 14, 2020)

I see it all the time on Twitter - replies to posts relating to antisemitism invariably include several knobends who are Labour supporters, blaming "the Jewish lobby", zionists, calling people nazis etc. Even given that some of these are going to be fake accounts there are still far too many.

But then there really are a lot of antisemites out there in all areas who think they are perfectly justified in that and need to speak out. It's not surprising that these include Labour supporters, even if the proportion might actually be smaller than in the general public. There's a general inability to accept that this is an issue that still exists across society, and a consequent insistence that any instance must be connected to some special factor.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 14, 2020)

Jess Phillips "My 6 point plan to restore trust in British democracy"


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jan 14, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I see it all the time on Twitter - replies to posts relating to antisemitism invariably include several knobends who are Labour supporters, blaming "the Jewish lobby", zionists, calling people nazis etc. Even given that some of these are going to be fake accounts there are still far too many.
> 
> But then there really are a lot of antisemites out there in all areas who think they are perfectly justified in that and need to speak out. It's not surprising that these include Labour supporters, even if the proportion might actually be smaller than in the general public. There's a general inability to accept that this is an issue that still exists across society, and a consequent insistence that any instance must be connected to some special factor.



I don’t think many people are suggesting there is no anti-semitism in society. It’s describing the Labour Party as a hot bed of anti semitism when there are literally only 5 potential ongoing anti semitism prosecutions from a Labour Party of half a million


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Would agree with Ska here and say that there was no attempt I can see. Off the top of my head, I think they changed the process for electing a leader slightly and had a row about whether or not Corbyn should be on the ballot after the VoNC in his leadership. Can't think of any other reforms to the party that they attempted.
> 
> There was never any push for automatic re-selection of MP's, which would have been a simple move that could have dramatically re-balanced power in the party. If memory serves Unite pushed for this at one point but were pressured to back down by Corbyn and his team. Corbyn was still routinely attacked on the issue of automatic re-selection despite the fact he never brought it in.
> 
> ...


The last four years of Labour Party politics has been characterised by constant factional fights. Some have been lost by the left, some (actually quite a lot) have been won. Some have been abandoned for tactical reasons and some, no doubt, have been sorted out in the back rooms without us knowing. But what you can't really say is that they haven't been happening. FWIW my understanding was the unions were the significant block to open selections, rather than pushing for them.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 14, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> I don’t think many people are suggesting there is no anti-semitism in society. It’s describing the Labour Party as a hot bed of anti semitism when there are literally only 5 potential ongoing anti semitism prosecutions from a Labour Party of half a million


I think an awful lot of people _do_ think that antisemitism is some weird fringe thing that is only present in (group X that they dislike) as opposed to being generally distributed within society and still really active. This is how you _get_ the idea that the Labour Party particularly has a problem with antisemitism - the refusal to believe that it's a broader issue.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

killer b said:


> The last four years of Labour Party politics has been characterised by constant factional fights. Some have been lost by the left, some (actually quite a lot) have been won. Some have been abandoned for tactical reasons and some, no doubt, have been sorted out in the back rooms without us knowing. But what you can't really say is that they haven't been happening. FWIW my understanding was the unions were the significant block to open selections, rather than pushing for them.



It was the policy of Unite to support mandatory re-selection but McCluskey U-turned, allegedly under pressure from the Labour leadership. Momentum members/conference delegates were not happy about it. At least that's how I remember it - I could be wrong and quite happy to be corrected.

What battles would you say were won by the left? Perhaps I'm being pessimistic in my recollections. I'm pretty sure the Labour leadership actually discouraged the unions from supporting mandatory re-selection though.

E2A: In any case, factional infighting isn't really the way to build support for the principle of democratising the party. You have to set out what you hope to achieve very clearly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2020)

[


FridgeMagnet said:


> I think an awful lot of people _do_ think that antisemitism is some weird fringe thing that is only present in (group X that they dislike) as opposed to being generally distributed within society and still really active. This is how you _get_ the idea that the Labour Party particularly has a problem with antisemitism - the refusal to believe that it's a broader issue.


I think it's a bit more than that, though. The imagined anti-Semitism of the Labour party isn't that of your average golf club bore. It's a very specific kind of anti-Semitism that stems from pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli sentiment and accompanies suspicious support for certain Muslim types. Anti-Israel, pro-Hamas. I would presume it can also be traced back to some of the alliances, real or imagined, that were forged during the Stop the War campaign.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> [
> 
> I think it's a bit more than that, though. The imagined anti-Semitism of the Labour party isn't that of your average golf club bore. It's a very specific kind of anti-Semitism that stems from pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli sentiment and accompanies suspicious support for certain Muslim types. Anti-Israel, pro-Hamas. I would presume it can also be traced back to some of the alliances, real or imagined, that were forged during the Stop the War campaign.



Yeah definitely the amount of daft shite bouncing around that particular campaign was horrendous. Crude anti-imperialism is the source of the lefts issue with anti-semitism, which is slightly different to the other forms of anti semitism very much present in society.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> openly anti-Semitic? On Labour face book pages? Screen shot any of it?  who’s definition of anti-Semitic are you referencing
> 
> sounds very much like your mind is made up


Curious - Whose definition do you like best ?
eta never mind, pointless.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 14, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it's a bit more than that, though. The imagined anti-Semitism of the Labour party isn't that of your average golf club bore. It's a very specific kind of anti-Semitism that stems from pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli sentiment and accompanies suspicious support for certain Muslim types. Anti-Israel, pro-Hamas. I would presume it can also be traced back to some of the alliances, real or imagined, that were forged during the Stop the War campaign.


Well, it is going to be expressed in various different ways depending on the background of whoever is involved. There is absolutely 100% antisemitism that turns up in that area of politics and that's one of the big areas where it will within the group of Labour supporters. But the insistence that there is only antisemitism amongst those opposing the Israeli government, and crucially _comes about due to that_, is denial. It can be found everywhere, for instance definitely amongst people who support the Israeli government - e.g. Trump as the most obvious example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, it is going to be expressed in various different ways depending on the background of whoever is involved. There is absolutely 100% antisemitism that turns up in that area of politics and that's one of the big areas where it will within the group of Labour supporters. But the insistence that there is only antisemitism amongst those opposing the Israeli government, and crucially _comes about due to that_, is denial. It can be found everywhere, for instance definitely amongst people who support the Israeli government - e.g. Trump as the most obvious example.


Ok, but the AS Labour is specifically accused of (and of which Corbyn, among others, has indeed been guilty) is that which comes from opposing Israel in a crude, stupid way. And ironically enough, Labour has been accused of such AS by people who themselves exhibit AS of the Trumpian variety - _North London Intellectuals_, etc.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 14, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, but the AS Labour is specifically accused of (and of which Corbyn, among others, has indeed been guilty) is that which comes from opposing Israel in a crude, stupid way. And ironically enough, Labour has been accused of such AS by people who themselves exhibit AS of the Trumpian variety - _North London Intellectuals_, etc.


Broadly, yes, sure, varies in instances but there's a general thread of not being willing or able to look at antisemitism across broader society.

Sorry, not sure where you're going with this.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 14, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, but the AS Labour is specifically accused of (and of which Corbyn, among others, has indeed been guilty) is that which comes from opposing Israel in a crude, stupid way. And ironically enough, Labour has been accused of such AS by people who themselves exhibit AS of the Trumpian variety - _North London Intellectuals_, etc.



Corbyn, and many others, are also guilty of the 'Masters of the World' AS - the crap about the Rothschilds, Jews owning the media and banking etc... thats a very old trope, one long predating the creation of Israel. it might be comforting to think that the AS that you speak of, the one focused on Israel, is a reaction, a _going too far_, an almost_ a hearts in the right place_ thing, a lesser AS, but the overlap in believer-ship between the two is remarkable/entirely predictable.

it would be interesting to see what proportion of those who boycott/call for boycotts of Israeli goods also have Chinese built smartphones...


----------



## two sheds (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Corbyn, and many others, are also guilty of the 'Masters of the World' AS - the crap about the Rothschilds, Jews owning the media and banking etc... thats a very old trope, one long predating the creation of Israel.



Where did he say that?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 14, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Where did he say that?



there was an interview he did with Andrew Neil during the election campaign where it took about 4 goes to get him to answer whether it was anti-semitic to beleive that Zionist Rothschilds run Israel and world governments. there was the mural thing he 'liked' that was dripping in the Jewish Banker tropes - the man is just riddled with this lazy-thinking crap.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> it would be interesting to see what proportion of those who boycott/call for boycotts of Israeli goods also have Chinese built smartphones...



What would that tell us? Other than they didn't shell out the extra cash for Japanese or Korean made smart phones?

Typing this on a Chinese model, if you're interested.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> there was an interview he did with Andrew Neil during the election campaign where it took about 4 goes to get him to answer whether it was anti-semitic to beleive that Zionist Rothschilds run Israel and world governments. there was the mural thing he 'liked' that was dripping in the Jewish Banker tropes - the man is just riddled with this lazy-thinking crap.



Agree about the mural, he really should have known better than to praise that. But I don't remember Neil asking him questions like that? Which interview was it?


----------



## rekil (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> But I don't remember Neil asking him questions like that? Which interview was it?


This one. 26th Nov.



Spoiler


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> People talked about it a lot but it didn't actually happen.
> 
> I actually think the 'trigger ballots' are worse because it allows the right to push this bullying narrative.
> 
> Plus the endless articles about MP's being 'triggered'.


Did the left actually manage to purge any MPs in the ballots they did orgainise?.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> What would that tell us? Other than they didn't shell out the extra cash for Japanese or Korean made smart phones?
> 
> Typing this on a Chinese model, if you're interested.



it would tell us whether such people are motivated by outrageous abuses of people, or are motivated by outrageous abuses of people when they are carried out by Jews...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

copliker said:


> This one. 26th Nov.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cheers. He says it is an anti semitic trope. I'm not sure if this is evidence that he is "dripping in the Jewish banker tropes" so much as incapable of just saying yes. If we're being charitable he is trying to say that yes it is anti-semitic and the report says that as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Did the left actually manage to purge any MPs in the ballots they did orgainise?.


By purge do you mean deselect? Or do you mean evict from the Labour Party?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> it would tell us whether such people are motivated by outrageous abuses of people, or are motivated by outrageous abuses of people when they are carried out by Jews...



Oh so you're holding the Chinese govt to higher standards than the Japanese or Korean governments then? 

I'm being a bit flippant. I don't think there's much to be gained in boycotting particular countries and I don't think BDS, at least in a blanket form, is a very useful tactic. I'm just pointing out that by the same logic I could say you don't really care about the super exploitation of Japanese and Korean workers. Or if the child miners in the Congo who mine a lot of the precious metals used in mobile phones wherever they have made. But obviously I'm sure you do care as we all do and where your phone comes from is not super important within that.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 14, 2020)

copliker said:


> This one. 26th Nov.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's just AN's tedious one question bullshit style (well, actually, every tv interviewer who thinks they're hard post Paxman, Neill doesn't have the imagination to come up with it on his own) combined with JC trying to reframe the question to one he thinks is more relevant, which he always tries to do. There are certainly issues with JC being far too tolerant of antisemitic shit when he should know better, but that isn't one of them.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 14, 2020)

Yes he should have said it first time, but during the first two interruptions he said it was unacceptable, third time he did say that it 'is' (seeming to say it was antisemitic), then explicitly said it was antisemitic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> there was an interview he did with Andrew Neil during the election campaign where it took about 4 goes to get him to answer whether it was anti-semitic to beleive that Zionist Rothschilds run Israel and world governments. there was the mural thing he 'liked' that was dripping in the Jewish Banker tropes - the man is just riddled with this lazy-thinking crap.


Fair dos I had missed that. It's frustrating cos this should be real basics stuff. It's not hard to get right  .


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 14, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh so you're holding the Chinese govt to higher standards than the Japanese or Korean governments then?
> 
> I'm being a bit flippant. I don't think there's much to be gained in boycotting particular countries and I don't think BDS, at least in a blanket form, is a very useful tactic. I'm just pointing out that by the same logic I could say you don't really care about the super exploitation of Japanese and Korean workers. Or if the child miners in the Congo who mine a lot of the precious metals used in mobile phones wherever they have made. But obviously I'm sure you do care as we all do and where your phone comes from is not super important within that.


Yes the _you're a hypocrite* if you boycott Israel but don't boycott X_ line is nonsense. It effectively is an argument against all boycotts, indeed all political action.

*Or maybe even an anti-semite


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 14, 2020)

Democracy in action.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 14, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The Corbyn clique with the parliamentary party was always tiny, that's why the likes of burgon and long-bailey could rise up the ranks.



Possibly true but then the heavyweights of the much larger moderate faction of PLP are hardly inspiring. Phillips, Leslie (pre split) etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2020)

Starmer is really running with the antisemtism thing on twitter. I'm sure this has nothing to do with wanting to smear any other candidates who might be more closely associated with the outgoing leadership.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 14, 2020)

In terms of union nominations the National Union of Mineworkers have come out for Nandy:









						EXCLUSIVE: National Union of Mineworkers backs Lisa Nandy for next Labour leader
					

Labour leadership candidate Lisa Nandy has secured the backing of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM).




					www.yorkshirepost.co.uk
				




Unison for Starmer.

I’ve been told twice this week that Unite are likely to go either RLB or Nandy, probably the former although McCluskey likes Nandy.

GMB are likely to go Nandy or Starmer. Same with ASLEF

CWU, Bakers Union and FBU for RLB.

USDAW and Community for Phillips.

Any more? Any arguments on the predictions?


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2020)

kebabking said:


> local facebook politics page. as i said.
> 
> i have made up my mind, yes - i've made up my mind that racists, fanatics, fuckwits and conspiraloons have, by their inability to just shut their fucking holes, _helped_ to cost the LP an election for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.



I didn't really see that many till i went on Sqwarkbox!


----------



## two sheds (Jan 14, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Starmer is really running with the antisemtism thing on twitter. I'm sure this has nothing to do with wanting to smear any other candidates who might be more closely associated with the outgoing leadership.



Not enough - he needs to go down on his hands and knees and ask for forgiveness like Thornberry.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 14, 2020)

Who are you going to vote for then two sheds ?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 14, 2020)

Dunno, RLB I'd imagine but with no great enthusiasm.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 15, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Dunno, RLB I'd imagine but with no great enthusiasm.



same, I think. I’m not really keen on any of the candidates tbh. Starmers’ pro-remainism makes him unsuitable for winning back northern Labour voters plus his abstention on the Tory welfare bill and backing of Owen Smith show his flakiness and tendency towards centrism. Nandy quit the Corbyn cabinet because it was too left wing. Philips is just shit. RLB does have a consistent left wing credentials but she lacks charisma and her leadership will inevitably be marked by the same intense factionalism and division that characterised the Corbyn years.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2020)

I'm surprised at the strength of reaction to Momentum recommending Long-Bailey ("North Korean democracy" etc etc.). It's what they did when recommending people to the NEC. Although the bastards didn't e-mail me this time.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 15, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Dunno, RLB I'd imagine but with no great enthusiasm.



It’s important to do things with little enthusiasm.

It’s true she’s hardly set the contest alight so far, but let’s hear what she has to say. In terms of leadership she comes over calm and amiable. These are positive qualities. She also seems grounded. I think it’s easy to get lost in a bigger picture of competing philosophies when for many voters it’s the cost of living that’s key and I think that would be at the forefront for her.


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2020)

> There are two parts to being Labour. First, enabling everyone to get a decent education, the best job they can, better standards of living and a fulfilling life. The free market has failed in this endeavour. We have to fight to put wealth, power and opportunity in the hands of all.
> 
> The second part is just as important. People’s lives don’t always work out the way they want. I have seen this at first hand in all the work I have ever done. Labour should always stand by people. The social security system should be decent, strong and unbreakable, with dignity at its heart. That’s what being Labour means.
> 
> ...



If he means it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 15, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> To be fair, in neither case have either of those parties made much of an offer to those people to join. Both Iglesias and Corbyn have somewhat dimmed their radical credentials in the process of leading their respective parties.
> 
> All I'm saying is that it's possible to put together a pitch that mobilises people beyond the existing membership. In the case of Corbyn for example whenever he was attacked new waves of people joined to defend his leadership ie Owen Smith challenge, 2017 election.
> 
> I'm not sure we will agree, I think with the Labour position on Brexit you saw it as neccessary to triangulate between the existing membership, resulting in the fudge position, and I thought it was possible to do something different. I'm just saying that I think theoretically, it could be possible for example for RLB to run a campaign geared towards a more confrontational approach to the labour right, based on democratising the party and appealing to people outside the Labour Party to join on the promise that the membership would have some real control over their MP's and what the party did. Even if it were not possible to win the leadership on this basis it would move the debate in a more positive direction.



The issue of real control is complicated.

Take my patch Lambeth.

Kate Hoey and Chuka managed to piss off everybody. Kete with her support of Brexit and Chuka with his right wing Blairite veiws.

The replacement for Kate Hoey ( who stood down before being the members deselected her) was Progress supporting ex Lambeth Cllr. 

In Streatham Chuka left due to membership moving to the left of him. He was replaced by Corbyn supporter. She stood in all women shortlist against two long standing Lambeth Cllrs. Both not liked localy for supprt of this Progess Lambeth Council. She won.

My third MP Helen Hayes ( on what I would say was soft right of party) did face reselection. But this failed. In praticise she is ( and I have personal experience of this) good community minded MP.  who  takes genuine interest in local issues. So I thought it was unfair to put her through re selection as she is good hard working MP on local issues.      

On issue of re selection its also going to about whether an MP is good at local issues.

Kate Hoey was and eventually squandered it on her support for Brexit. She managed to piss off the left and right of the local party. Standing as a candidate for Brexit party in my area as alternative was a non starter in inner London. She she went.  

Chuka was rubbish on local issues and on the right of the party so left before he may have been pushed.


----------



## oryx (Jan 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> My third MP Helen Hayes ( on what I would say was soft right of party) did face reselection. But this failed. In praticise she is ( and I have personal experience of this) good community minded MP.  who  takes genuine interest in local issues. So I thought it was unfair to put her through re selection as she is good hard working MP on local issues.
> 
> On issue of re selection its also going to about whether an MP is good at local issues.


Re-selection isn't about whether the MP is good or not, it's about democracy and MPs not having a job for life.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 16, 2020)

oryx said:


> Re-selection isn't about whether the MP is good or not, it's about democracy and MPs not having a job for life.



Fair enough.

What I would really like to see in Lambeth is mandatory re selection by ordinary members of Cllrs. Might make some of them think a bit before supporting unpopular local policies.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2020)

oryx said:


> Re-selection isn't about whether the MP is good or not, it's about democracy and MPs not having a job for life.



Well to be fair I don't think people would be so bothered about them being there for years if they did a good job.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

Surprised to see RLB ahead in the latest poll.









						Exclusive: Poll of members shows leadership race too close to call – LabourList
					

Labour's leadership race appears to be narrowing with Rebecca Long-Bailey coming out just ahead of her opponents on the basis of first preferences in a…




					labourlist.org


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> Surprised to see RLB ahead in the latest poll.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aye, although very narrowly after second preference votes.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

oryx said:


> Re-selection isn't about whether the MP is good or not, it's about democracy and MPs not having a job for life.


Re-selection was about ousting moderate MPs and replacing them with far left candidates.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 16, 2020)

I do hope RLB wins it, but only because she's not Keir Starmer.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 16, 2020)

Starmer will really have to fuck it up to not win at this stage, by the looks of it.

Thornberry and Phillips aren't serious candidates, Nandy is making a lot of noise but things like approving of the Spanish crackdown in Catalonia and posturing on Brexit is just bizarre, and RLB, whilst clearly a contender, seems to be a charisma vaccuum and dogged by being portrayed as the continuity candidate.

All of them I think bar Phillips will be in the next shadow cabinet. Phillips is like the mad embarrassing aunt you consign to a table full of people you don't know at a wedding.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Re-selection was about ousting moderate MPs and replacing them with far left candidates.



You can characterise it as that if you like, but there is nothing obviously wrong with the idea that candidates should broadly reflect the views of the membership rather than endlessly follow their own agendas.

And yes _Corbyn_, but when he was rebelling he had decent support among the membership for his views. It’s not to say there shouldn’t be any conscience voting, but fuck knows what half of the MPs Labour had over the last decade were actually doing in the party.

Compared to the recent Tory purge Labour hasn’t really ever got going.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2020)

steeplejack said:


> Starmer will really have to fuck it up to not win at this stage, by the looks of it.
> 
> Thornberry and Phillips aren't serious candidates, Nandy is making a lot of noise but things like approving of the Spanish crackdown in Catalonia and posturing on Brexit is just bizarre, and RLB, whilst clearly a contender, seems to be a charisma vaccuum and dogged by being portrayed as the continuity candidate.



I agree with your characterisation of the candidates. It’s a seriously low quality field. Starmer and RLB (and possibly Nandy) are clearly the only candidates with a serious chance of winning.

But the references to Starmer as the favourite are wide of the mark. He was always going to be the PLP choice. Unison were never going to go for RLB.

Let’s see where we are once the union, CLP and affiliates nominations are in. Momentum members have voted for RLB (mind you she was the only option on the ballot paper) and as the poll above reveals is currently most likely to win. If she actually starts to campaign she’s the one they all have to beat.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 16, 2020)

steeplejack said:


> All of them I think bar Phillips will be in the next shadow cabinet. Phillips is like the mad embarrassing aunt you consign to a table full of people you don't know at a wedding.



At my sister's wedding she managed to seat the mad aunts from both sides of the family next to each other. They got on like a house on fire, and nobody had to talk to either of them all night


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> At my sister's wedding she managed to seat the mad aunts from both sides of the family next to each other. They got on like a house on fire, and nobody had to talk to either of them all night



Nice. Love a good news story.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Re-selection was about ousting moderate MPs and replacing them with far left candidates.



You're the mad embarrassing aunt aren't you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're the mad embarrassing aunt aren't you?


Nope.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2020)

Hilariously Angela Rayner almost lost the vote for momentum supper for the deputy job. This despite the fact that she was the only candidate their supporters were able to vote for!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 16, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> ....but there is nothing obviously wrong with the idea that candidates should broadly reflect the views of the membership...



Unless, of course, the membership is so detached from the general public's views, that they keep selecting MPs and electing leaders that will never bring them back into government.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Hilariously Angela Rayner almost lost the vote for momentum supper for the deputy job. This despite the fact that she was the only candidate their supporters were able to vote for!



it's the headbangers wanting to vote Burgon accounting for the difference...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Hilariously Angela Rayner almost lost the vote for momentum supper for the deputy job. This despite the fact that she was the only candidate their supporters were able to vote for!



So RLB got 12% of the membership. Solid.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> So RLB got 12% of the membership. Solid.


Did you miss this? 


killer b said:


> Surprised to see RLB ahead in the latest poll.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> Did you miss this?


No, the membership of momentum.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

Ah! Well. They're all going to vote Long-Bailey anyway, even the people who voted against endorsing her were mostly doing it to object to being only offered one option. There's no-one else in the running.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I agree with your characterisation of the candidates. It’s a seriously low quality field.


I think theres a question as to Why the field is so shit.
David Graeber is probably right with this - basically they're all tainted by the culture of managerial politics a la Blair:


> Most sitting Labour MPs had begun as Labour youth activists themselves, just as most centrist political journalists had begun their careers as leftists, even revolutionaries, of one sort or another. But they had also risen through the ranks of Blair’s machine at a time when advancement was largely based on willingness to sacrifice one’s youthful ideals. They had become the very people they would have once despised as sell-outs.


Id hope for a bit more of a culture change in maybe 10 years time.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> I think theres a question as to Why the field is so shit.
> David Graeber is probably right with this - basically they're all tainted by the culture of managerial politics a la Blair:
> 
> Id hope for a bit more of a culture change in maybe 10 years time.


Only vaguely possible if Labour recruit working class members especially in areas where they lost.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> Unless, of course, the membership is so detached from the general public's views, that they keep selecting MPs and electing leaders that will never bring them back into government.



That doesn’t immediately tell you who the membership should then select, given that centrists are about as popular with the voters as norovirus on a cruise ship.

The best that you can do is try to propose honest individuals who can demonstrate they hold the principles the members largely support. If the general public doesn’t like it, then they don’t.

But that’s not the same as being politically naive, for example holding onto a leader way after his sell by date or not listening to the public and trying to find the intersections.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> it's the headbangers wanting to vote Burgon accounting for the difference...



Is it not also a protest at the way in which this has been handled by the NCC/JL? ‘Do you agree with us’ invites a ‘no, we don’t’ answer...


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is it not also a protest at the way in which this has been handled by the NCC/JL? ‘Do you agree with us’ invites a ‘no, we don’t’ answer...


That's the 29.58% who voted against endorsing RLB.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 16, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> That doesn’t immediately tell you who the membership should then select, given that centrists are about as popular with the voters as norovirus on a cruise ship.



What evidence is there of that?



> The best that you can do is try to propose honest individuals who can demonstrate they hold the principles the members largely support. If the general public doesn’t like it, then they don’t.



Great, so I get to live out the rest of my life under Tory governments.

.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Only vaguely possible if Labour recruit working class members especially in areas where they lost.


The thing is even working class candidates in this leadership contest have the air of giving power point presentations at a vacuum cleaner sales conference... I'm speculating that attitude has been bread from the wider managerial Blairite culture, effecting even those on the left of the party of this generation


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> ...great, so I get to live out the rest of my life under Tory governments.
> 
> .



The answer, if Labour decide to wander off into the political wilderness, is to start your own centre-left party that refuses the membership applications of anti-Semites like Williamson and barely functioning half-wits like Burgon - but as has been demonstrated many times, starting a new party and steering it to power is not a smooth road.

It is, as IKIP and the Brexit party have shown, a lot easier to just join an existing party and change it from within.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> The thing is even working class candidates in this leadership contest have the air of giving power point presentations at a vacuum cleaner sales conference... I'm speculating that attitude has been bread from the wider managerial Blairite culture, effecting even those on the left of the party of this generation


I take the point about the impact of managerialism although tbf it’s not limited to either Labour or Britain tbh. I suppose although they aren’t standing  Lavery and Rayner aren’t as manufactured .


----------



## treelover (Jan 16, 2020)

only 7000 voted, not exactly convincing, lost all interest in Momentum, Nandy was good on Neil interview, apparently the political journos are saying she smashed it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 16, 2020)

Long-Bailey Burgon dream ticket would have been quite something


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

Which of the leadership contenders were forged in the fires of Blairism? There's only one who was even an MP under Blair, and I don't think any of them took the usual Blairite NGO / Spad route into parliament.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2020)

Newtonian pedants have been known to point out that Momentum is technically the same thing as Inertia.


----------



## treelover (Jan 16, 2020)

Long bailey seems to be a lovely person, decent, very compassionate, convictions, great back story, but she just seems to be someone without charisma, sadly needed in todays politics, maybe she will yet surpise us.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 16, 2020)

What does it mean to say someone doesn't have "charisma" in this context? How does it matter? The idea that it's needed seems to have caused a massive amount of trouble. Maybe that idea is what we should be fighting.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> Unless, of course, the membership is so detached from the general public's views, that they keep selecting MPs and electing leaders that will never bring them back into government


And if it is the democratic decision of the membership to select those candidates? Should that be ignored if it does not align with the "general public's views", however that is measured?


cupid_stunt said:


> Great, so I get to live out the rest of my life under Tory governments.


What are you actually arguing for/against? Something like the Conservative leadership election procedure, something like the old LP college system? I mean even if you are not a member of the LP you can vote in the leadership election if you want.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> Which of the leadership contenders were forged in the fires of Blairism? There's only one who was even an MP under Blair, and I don't think any of them took the usual Blairite NGO / Spad route into parliament.


That may well be true but there's a new Labour culture that runs through the modern Labour party... It has a feel and a way of talking, Blair onwards. Corbyn, Benn, Skinner etc are noticeably of a different non managerial cut, I would suggest. And there's positive signs of a change with some of the younger intake in their 20s...

I might be making too much of it, but it feels that way to me at least


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2020)

So Long Bailey is tying herself up in knots over abortion limits, of all things. 

Long-Bailey says abortion limit should not be different for disability

Not an auspicious start.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2020)

treelover said:


> Long bailey seems to be a lovely person, decent, very compassionate, convictions, great back story, but she just seems to be someone without charisma, sadly needed in todays politics, maybe she will yet surpise us.


Wouldn’t go out for a drink with any of them to be honest and I’d avoid an alcohol influenced Jess Philips at all costs .


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So Long Bailey is tying herself up in knots over abortion limits, of all things.
> 
> Long-Bailey says abortion limit should not be different for disability
> 
> Not an auspicious start.


That whole "issue" is a joke. It is absolutely right that a different time limit for abortion based on "disability" is discriminatory and actively promotes the idea that the life of a disabled person is worth less than others. Pretty amazingly distasteful that this is being used as a political stick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That whole "issue" is a joke. It is absolutely right that a different time limit for abortion based on "disability" is discriminatory and actively promotes the idea that the life of a disabled person is worth less than others. Pretty amazingly distasteful that this is being used as a political stick.


But that doesn't make Long Bailey less wrong about it. The conclusion should be that the limit is wrong, not that it should be enforced more strictly. And it's politically clueless of her to allow herself to become entangled in it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So Long Bailey is tying herself up in knots over abortion limits, of all things.
> 
> Long-Bailey says abortion limit should not be different for disability
> 
> Not an auspicious start.



How is that being tied up in knots? It’s a personal view and a perfectly reasonable one. She’s not proposing legislation.

We used to say stuff before this social media age and hold opinions. As much as it’s desirable the Labour Party finds a candidate who appeals to the many, what’s the point if they can say nothing, see nothing, do nothing?


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> I don't think any of them took the usual Blairite NGO / Spad route into parliament.


Actually, Nandy did, the most _down to earth_ and _authentic_ character of the field. Funny that.


ska invita said:


> That may well be true but there's a new Labour culture that runs through the modern Labour party... It has a feel and a way of talking, Blair onwards. Corbyn, Benn, Skinner etc are noticeably of a different non managerial cut, I would suggest. And there's positive signs of a change with some of the younger intake in their 20s...
> 
> I might be making too much of it, but it feels that way to me at least


That culture has been on the wane since way before Corbyn though - the union route into parliament seems much more prevelant among new MPs since 2010 I reckon


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that doesn't make Long Bailey less wrong about it. The conclusion should be that the limit is wrong, not that it should be enforced more strictly. And it's politically clueless of her to allow herself to become entangled in it.


she can't really avoid it though, she's a catholic. that's one of the questions they ask catholics.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that doesn't make Long Bailey less wrong about it. The conclusion should be that the limit is wrong, not that it should be enforced more strictly. And it's politically clueless of her to allow herself to become entangled in it.


It's a hit piece by Red Roar, which is a shithouse, supported by the Guardian. Quite apart from the fact that her stated position is absolutely right (and I say that as someone who thinks the limit should be generally raised) you'll note the lack of interest in asking other candidates whether they support raising the time.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 16, 2020)

I don't even support RLB - the Labour Party is now just something that other people do, for me, I have no interest in what happens to it any more - but this general continuation of election style ratfucking _does_ annoy me.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> And if it is the democratic decision of the membership to select those candidates? Should that be ignored if it does not align with the "general public's views", however that is measured?



It becomes pointless if the choice means the party will never win, and the "general public's views" are measured at the time of a general election, I am amazed I have to explain that.



> What are you actually arguing for/against? Something like the Conservative leadership election procedure, something like the old LP college system? I mean even if you are not a member of the LP you can vote in the leadership election if you want.



I am not arguing for/against anything, I don't have any answers, but I do want to see Labour strong enough to actually get elected, and I don't see RLB being the solution, her rating of Corbyn as 10 out 10, after such a massive car-crash, is beyond a joke.

What I do know, is a lot of family & friends that are traditional Labour supporters/voters, some former members, turned their back on the party because of Corbyn & momentum, these people need winning back.

I know an active member of the Tory party, who's apparently is a regular at the local Conservative club, and I enjoy picking his brains -

- when it came to the Tory leadership battle, he admitted that he & most of his mates voted for Johnson, despite not liking him, but because of what the choices were, he was most electable.

- he now tells me, he & his mates are hoping RLB becomes Labour leader, what they fear is KS.

Take it with a pinch of salt if you want, I am just putting it out there.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> It becomes pointless if the choice means the party will never win, and the "general public's views" are measured at the time of a general election, I am amazed I have to explain that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, but Brexit and nasty Remain.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> It becomes pointless if the choice means the party will never win, and "general public's views" are measured at the time of a general elections, I am amazed I have to explain that.


In your view (as a non-member?) perhaps. In the view of members maybe not. Members may decide that a commitment to a particular political direction/positions is more important than "electability" (whatever that means). It's not "pointless" to SNP members that the party commits to Scottish Independence, regardless of the fact that it might cost them some votes.



cupid_stunt said:


> I am not arguing for/against anything, I don't have any answers, but I do want to see is Labour strong enough to actually get elected, and I don't see RBL being the solution, her rating of Corbyn as 10 out 10, after such a massive car-crash, is beyond a joke.


Then join the party, or even just pay £25 and vote. You say you want Labour to get elected but (unless you are a member) you clearly don't care about the LP to commit to it as those members that intend to vote for RLB do otherwise you'd pay the subs, you'd go along to meetings, etc. The idea that the democratic views of members (who commit their time and effort to the party) should be somehow impinged because of your view as a non-member leads to the sort of anti-democratic politics of New Labour.

If you are going to argue that it is not tactically sensible (again on what basis and from what political position?) for the LP to elect RLB as leader or deselect certain MPs ok, but the idea that it is somehow unfair or wrong is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt - its long been a political truth (with the odd exception) that the Tory party understands that principle, without power, is a wasted breath. They long ago decided that it's better to have 40% of what you want, 40% of what you can live with, and 20% of what you don't like than 0% of what you want, and 100% of what you don't want.

Both Cameron and Johnson are indicators of this attitude - they don't particularly like either of them, but they recognise that they'd bring them power. Some power is better than no power...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> In your view (as a non-member?) perhaps. In the view of members maybe not. Members may decide that a commitment to a particular political direction/positions is more important than "electability" (whatever that means). It's not "pointless" to SNP members that the party commits to Scottish Independence, regardless of the fact that it might cost them some votes.
> 
> Then join the party, or even just pay £25 and vote. You say you want Labour to get elected but (unless you are a member) you clearly don't care about the LP to commit to it as those members that intend to vote for RLB do otherwise you'd pay the subs, you'd go along to meetings, etc. The idea that the democratic views of members (who commit their time and effort to the party) should be somehow impinged because of your view as a non-member leads to the sort of anti-democratic politics of New Labour.
> 
> If you are going to argue that it is not tactically sensible (again on what basis and from what political position?) for the LP to elect RLB as leader or deselect certain MPs ok, but the idea that it is somehow unfair or wrong is a different kettle of fish.


And, that's just the attitude that will inflict Tory rule for the foreseeable future.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, that's just the attitude that will inflict Tory rule for the foreseeable future.


What the attitude that the people who care enough to commit money and time to becoming members should also get to decide party policy? Yes what a terrible viewpoint. 

FFS look at the sort of technocratic nonsense you are arguing, that political groups should limit democracy to order to facilitate the opinions of non-members.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> cupid_stunt - its long been a political truth (with the odd exception) that the Tory party understands that principle, without power, is a wasted breath. They long ago decided that it's better to have 40% of what you want, 40% of what you can live with, and 20% of what you don't like than 0% of what you want, and 100% of what you don't want.
> 
> Both Cameron and Johnson are indicators of this attitude - they don't particularly like either of them, but they recognise that they'd bring them power. Some power is better than no power...



Indeed, it's both reality & common sense, something that seems not to register with people in the momentum & urban bubble.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> What the attitude that the people who care enough to commit money and time to becoming members should also get to decide party policy? Yes what a terrible viewpoint.
> 
> FFS look at the sort of technocratic nonsense you are arguing, that political groups should limit democracy to order to facilitate the opinions of non-members.



I haven't argued anything, I've said I don't know the answer.

But, it seems fucking pointless if the membership keeps electing leaders, that will never become PM, and leave us with the Tories forever.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2020)

treelover said:


> only 7000 voted, not exactly convincing, lost all interest in Momentum, Nandy was good on Neil interview, apparently the political journos are saying she smashed it.


I’m amazed 7,000 bothered to vote given the fact that there was no choice.

As for Nandy, she comes over very professionally and clearly. But is there any substance to what she says? Neill asked her last night what the position would be if a local community didn’t want wind turbines in their area or if they wanted a selective school. Would Nandy, who had just said her central offer was the devolution of _power _down to communities allow that. No prizes for guessing the answer


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> I haven't argued anything, I've said I don't know the answer.


You've argued that there is something "wrong" with "the membership [...] selecting MPs and electing leaders that will never bring them back into government."


cupid_stunt said:


> But, it seems fucking pointless if the membership keeps electing leaders, that will never become PM, and leave us with the Tories forever.


Pointless for you maybe, pointless for others, who might place greater importance on the labour movement than the LP, maybe not.

I'm not an LP member, hell I'm opposed to the LP but the squeals of non-members about how terrible it is that LP members get to decide their leaders, having (an actually very small say) in re-selection or decisions on policy are frankly pathetic. If you* care about the LP getting into power then have the commitment to join the bloody thing, go along to meetings and make your case for "electability" to other members, go out canvassing for the party and/or candidate you support.

*plural you

EDIT: It's pretty simple if you are a socialist you argue in favour of measures that increase democracy and workers control - even if that means that decisions that you personally might not agree with are more likely to get made.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Hilariously Angela Rayner almost lost the vote for momentum supper for the deputy job. This despite the fact that she was the only candidate their supporters were able to vote for!




loads of us are voting Burgon, ( despite liking AR ) am surprised she's squeaked it tbh


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m amazed 7,000 bothered to vote given the fact that there was no choice.
> 
> As for Nandy, she comes over very professionally and clearly. But is there any substance to what she says? Neill asked her last night what the position would be if a local community didn’t want wind turbines in their area or if they wanted a selective school. Would Nandy, who had just said her central offer was the devolution of _power _down to communities allow that. No prizes for guessing the answer



I thought she came across very well and held her own. But I agree there is dearth of substance. So on the NHS question she paused over it and eventually said she was against privatisation. Box ticked, but it’s thin to pause and then say just that. The NHS is already heavily privatised, so does she mean stop there or the current sorts of privatisation are ok let’s have more or reverse it? Because it will carry on without a significant steer against.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

cantsin said:


> loads of us are voting Burgon


I guess it would keep him safely out of the way


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> Actually, Nandy did, the most _down to earth_ and _authentic_ character of the field. Funny that.
> That culture has been on the wane since way before Corbyn though - the union route into parliament seems much more prevelant among new MPs since 2010 I reckon


do you have a theory as to why the field is so weak, that doesnt involve Blair?


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> do you have a theory as to why the field is so weak, that doesnt involve Blair?


when was it ever that strong?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> cupid_stunt - its long been a political truth (with the odd exception) that the Tory party understands that principle, without power, is a wasted breath. They long ago decided that it's better to have 40% of what you want, 40% of what you can live with, and 20% of what you don't like than 0% of what you want, and 100% of what you don't want.
> 
> Both Cameron and Johnson are indicators of this attitude - they don't particularly like either of them, but they recognise that they'd bring them power. Some power is better than no power...



I think this is a little generous to the Tories. They’ve been ripping themselves apart over Europe for decades and have been stuffed full of fucking loons like Chope, Bone or Cash who would probably imprison men for wearing flip flops.

What they have is a very coherent media to keep a narrative going on their behalf and trash anyone else.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> In your view (as a non-member?) perhaps. In the view of members maybe not. Members may decide that a commitment to a particular political direction/positions is more important than "electability" (whatever that means). It's not "pointless" to SNP members that the party commits to Scottish Independence, regardless of the fact that it might cost them some votes.


If fact, electability or appealing to a broad section of the population can even be seen as a bad thing.


----------



## Arbeter Fraynd (Jan 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> do you have a theory as to why the field is so weak, that doesnt involve Blair?



is it a weak field, relatively speaking?  I mean I'm not very impressed with any of them, but surely Starmer and Phillips, much as I dislike them, have more name recognition and personality than Owen Smith or Liz Kendall had?

in terms of a weak field on the left of the party, why would committed, radical, imaginative, thoughtful, working class left activists have got involved in Labour pre-Corbyn?  In which case there hasn't been much time for any talent there is to come through - there do seem to be some articulate and interesting new MPs and candidates who didn't get elected


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If fact, electability or appealing to a broad section of the population can even be seen as a bad thing.



It may not, but if it’s dishonest it’s catastrophic. Under Ed we had Labour’s feeble and dishonest attempts to be tough on immigration and benefits, not because these things necessarily appealed to anyone or solved anyone’s problems but because they appealed to the jackals of the press.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If fact, electability or appealing to a broad section of the population can even be seen as a bad thing.


I've not said, or even implied, anything of the kind. I've not made argument as to what should be the (prime) concern of members.

My point is very simple - that those (like you) that squeal about how unfair it is that the LP, a party that you are not a member of, whose political views doesn't square with your political views - doesn't behave as you want it to behave, and so would argue in flavour of anti-democratic policies are pathetic fools.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 16, 2020)

What tories fear is this middle class bloke with middle class politics say middle class blokes with middle class politics. No disrespect to anybody but it's boring


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> when was it ever that strong?


hah fair enough...first time ive looked tbh


----------



## ska invita (Jan 16, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What tories fear is this middle class bloke with middle class politics say middle class blokes with middle class politics. No disrespect to anybody but it's boring


also he gives off the air of a man going through a horrible divorce and eating cornflakes for dinner. Id go beyond boring to depressing


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> hah fair enough...first time ive looked tbh


It's easy to forget that there isn't actually that many people in parliament - and of course currently Labour are on a historic low anyway. Once you remove the terminally depraved, the brain dead and the inbreds you're lucky if there's 10-15 people you'd even be happy to share a cab with, let alone let run the country.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2020)

cantsin said:


> loads of us are voting Burgon



Why?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I've not said, or even implied, anything of the kind. I've not made argument as to what should be the (prime) concern of members.
> 
> My point is very simple - that those (like you) that squeal about how unfair it is that the LP, a party that you are not a member of, whose political views doesn't square with your political views - doesn't behave as you want it to behave, and so would argue in flavour of anti-democratic policies are pathetic fools.


I think that there were a number of far left entryists that came into Labour and don't square with my political views, certainly. How much a grip they have on the party, we'll see.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

You are not even a social democrat. You argued in favour of austerity -  a position never really supported by the majority of LP members, hence Corbyn's win. The idea all these horrible far left entryists took the party away from you (were you ever a member?) is deluded crap. Your politics was more or less aligned with the leadership of the party for a short time, it was never aligned with the wider party membership/culture.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 16, 2020)

I find it weird how new labour explicitly made a break with labour hence new and yet their heirs spend their lives pissing and moaning about how they're true labour not like these new cunts. God the labour party is awful isn't it


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I find it weird how new labour explicitly made a break with labour hence new and yet their heirs spend their lives pissing and moaning about how they're true labour not like these new cunts. *God the labour party is awful isn't it*


It is. But it's not as awful as the liberal-left moaners, going on about how terrible it is that the LP isn't doing what they want


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 16, 2020)

And all this drags on until April, as bleak a looped box set of _Heimat _playing in an abandoned shopping centre


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> It is. But it's not as awful as the liberal-left moaners, going on about how terrible it is that the LP isn't doing what they want



Well yeah they are a big part of why it's awful tbf #labourdoorstep


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 16, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I find it weird how new labour explicitly made a break with labour hence new and yet their heirs spend their lives pissing and moaning about how they're true labour not like these new cunts. God the labour party is awful isn't it



But they are all united by one idea, that capitalism and its failings can be explained and challenged on moral grounds. The only real difference is the extent of the severity of the criticism. But whether it’s Blair, Corbyn, Nandy or Long Bailey capitalism’s failings are about values. None attempt to present it as untenable or incoherent and challenge it on that basis. Dead end politics


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> That may well be true but there's a new Labour culture that runs through the modern Labour party... It has a feel and a way of talking, Blair onwards. Corbyn, Benn, Skinner etc are noticeably of a different non managerial cut, I would suggest. And there's positive signs of a change with some of the younger intake in their 20s...
> 
> I might be making too much of it, but it feels that way to me at least



Not sure exactly where you are but in Lambeth Id say you are spot on.

In Streathan new succesful candidate who was elected to replace Chuka is from the new younger intake.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy now an MP for Streatham. The LD remain "surge" didn't happen. Despite this being Remain area. 

In fact the streatham area Labour party membership never supported Blairites. Bell getting the seat when up against two other  women local Cllrs who were Blairites didnt surprise me . 

When the seat fell vacant , when Chuka  went  for  it,  Steve Reed arch Blairite Leader of Lambeth Council went for seat. Chuka was the left candidate. I know that might sound odd  but he was then. Membership went for Chuka to criticise the Blairite project. They were sadly disappointed in the long term. 

It need to be remmbered that the Blairite project held what was considered its core voters / supporters in contempt. Middle class Guardian  readers and Councl tenants were laughed at. 

So imo , despite the declining membership in Lambeth pre Corbyn ,  the opposition and ressentment against the Blaiirite project pre dated Corbyn

I see it with the rise of the Green party in Lambeth. Several really good black working class candidates have stood as Greens in my Ward. People imo who should have been mainstays of the local Labour party.

What im saying is in my area the general publlic who are Labour voters/ members never have been that keen on the "centre" ground.

There is a space for left politicians in Lambeth.

Bell is off to a good start taking up local issues. So hopefully as an MP she will take my New Labour Council to task.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Why?



Because Pidcock's chairing his campaign?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> You are not even a social democrat. You argued in favour of austerity -  a position never really supported by the majority of LP members, hence Corbyn's win. The idea all these horrible far left entryists took the party away from you (were you ever a member?) is deluded crap. Your politics was more or less aligned with the leadership of the party for a short time, it was never aligned with the wider party membership/culture.


They definitely entered from whichever micro - cult they were part of with the aim of moving Labour to the far left. They were there previously in the 80s, but that was before my time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> It is. But it's not as awful as the liberal-left moaners, going on about how terrible it is that the LP isn't doing what they want


Yeah, like winning elections.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2020)

Corbyn won comfortably with the pre-2015 membership too though


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 16, 2020)

Imagine thinking a couple of hundred k of people or whatever came from leninist sects that at their height were only ambitions enough to make up membership figures of single digit thousands


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 17, 2020)

Like I said deluded.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Bell Ribeiro-Addy now an MP for Streatham. The LD remain "surge" didn't happen. Despite this being Remain area.



Err

LD vote share went from 6.5% to 23.5% in streatham.

Alex


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 17, 2020)

alex_ said:


> Err
> 
> LD vote share went from 6.5% to 23.5% in streatham.
> 
> Alex



In Streatham Bell Ribeiro-Addy got 54.8% of the vote. So LDs came nowhere near winning the seat. This in an area that was Rmain . Bell Ribeio - Addy was a candidate from the left of the party. Replacing Chuka. So its good result and shows inner London didnt reject Labour party.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2020)

The LDs never had any expectation of taking Streatham though tbf, otherwise Umuna would have stayed there.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 17, 2020)

The moral failings of capitalism/the Tories part 132,837:



From the sound of the booing there are about 15 people at the rally. Shades are weird as well


----------



## cantsin (Jan 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Why?



committed socialist that hasn't wobbled like Rayner has - Dep Leader doesn't mean much, but better for morale if Burgon wins

( won't pretend to partic enthused about any of it btw )


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2020)

But what about him being a fucking idiot?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> But what about him being a fucking idiot?



I think you answered your own question. 



killer b said:


> It's easy to forget that there isn't actually that many people in parliament - and of course currently Labour are on a historic low anyway. Once you remove the terminally depraved, the brain dead and the inbreds you're lucky if there's 10-15 people you'd even be happy to share a cab with, let alone let run the country.



We've had dealings with Rayner in UCU cos she was shadow Education. She's hardly an intellectual herself. Burgon is probably the better option politically but that's hardly a ringing endorsement.


----------



## Supine (Jan 17, 2020)

Burgon comes across as thick as mince. He’d be election suicide. RLB appeals to the party maybe but not the people who count. Labour need to finally realise it’s the country who vote in a government and not the sacred membership.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2020)

Supine said:


> Burgon comes across as thick as mince. He’d be election suicide. RLB appeals to the party maybe but not the people who count. Labour need to finally realise it’s the country who vote in a government and not the sacred membership.


Did you make this argument over brexit? I don't recall you doing so.


----------



## Supine (Jan 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Did you make this argument over brexit? I don't recall you doing so.



I made a different argument over a different subject. Not relevant.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2020)

Supine said:


> Labour need to finally realise it’s the country who vote in a government and not the sacred membership.


isn't it the sacred membership who need to finally realise this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2020)

Supine said:


> I made a different argument over a different subject. Not relevant.


No, if your logic above is correct, if the content of the post is correct, you should have been arguing for labour to have a more leave friendly position over the last few years. You didn't. Your post is just pure opportunism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> isn't it the sacred membership who need to finally realise this?


Just leaders, don't need a membership. I doubt this poster has ever been in a political organisation in their life.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2020)

Supine said:


> Burgon comes across as thick as mince. He’d be election suicide. RLB appeals to the party maybe but not the people who count. Labour need to finally realise it’s the country who vote in a government and not the sacred membership.



You also come across as thick as mince but nobody has said you shouldn't be Labour leader.


----------



## Supine (Jan 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> isn't it the sacred membership who need to finally realise this?



labour IS the membership is it not? They need to elect an electable leader. The future is speculation, the data from history on this is available for all to see.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2020)

Supine said:


> I made a different argument over a different subject. Not relevant.



How are they different? On Brexit you say they should do what members want. When it doesn't suit you you say they should do what 'the country' wants?

Why don't you just say Labour should do what you want? Then we'd all just let you prattle on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2020)

Supine said:


> labour IS the membership is it not? They need to elect an electable leader. The future is speculation, the data from history on this is available for all to see.


What is this utter cant. It's like the way the state underfunded and ran down nationalised services then said see they're shit, they have to go. None of you types are ever going to wear what you did are you?


----------



## Supine (Jan 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> No, if your logic above is correct, if the content of the post is correct, you should have been arguing for labour to have a more leave friendly position over the last few years. You didn't. Your post is just pure opportunism.



My position on brexit is personal opinion on how the country is related to Europe. I’ll not be changing that view ever. Elections are not about personal opinions they are about everybody else’s opinion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2020)

Supine said:


> My position on brexit is personal option on how the country is related to Europe. I’ll not be changing that view ever. Elections are not about personal opinions they are about everybody else’s opinion.


This is just waffle, hypocrisy exposing waffle i grant you - but waffle nonetheless.


----------



## Supine (Jan 17, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why don't you just say Labour should do what you want?



They should! But you’d say the same and you’d be wrong


----------



## JimW (Jan 17, 2020)

kebabking said:


> cupid_stunt - its long been a political truth (with the odd exception) that the Tory party understands that principle, without power, is a wasted breath. They long ago decided that it's better to have 40% of what you want, 40% of what you can live with, and 20% of what you don't like than 0% of what you want, and 100% of what you don't want.
> 
> Both Cameron and Johnson are indicators of this attitude - they don't particularly like either of them, but they recognise that they'd bring them power. Some power is better than no power...


This works for them because they are the establishment, it doesn't work for even milksop social democrats because just having power and no principles means you will also serve only the establishment, as Blair did. The few percentage of less awful policies weren't worth the further undermining of the already quite fanciful notion of a mass party representing the working class.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 17, 2020)

What is it with these outraged liberals and the LP. 
_Its SO unfair that this party (that I'm not a member of, that I don't even vote for) does not change its politics to something that suits me!_


butchersapron said:


> I doubt this poster has ever been in a political organisation in their life.


I don't think most of them have.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> In Streatham Bell Ribeiro-Addy got 54.8% of the vote. So LDs came nowhere near winning the seat. This in an area that was Rmain . Bell Ribeio - Addy was a candidate from the left of the party. Replacing Chuka. So its good result and shows inner London didnt reject Labour party.



what you said “there was no Lib Dem surge” - what actually happened - LD vote nearly quadrupled.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 17, 2020)

alex_ said:


> what you said “there was no Lib Dem surge” - what actually happened - LD vote nearly quadrupled.



The LDs didn't get the seat. So the surge didn't work.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 17, 2020)

The LDs didn't get the seat. So the surge didn't work.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The LDs didn't get the seat. So the surge didn't work.



Is that the surge which you said their was no evidence of or a different one ?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 17, 2020)

alex_ said:


> Is that the surge which you said their was no evidence of or a different one ?



Can we stop pussy footing around.

What your getting at is that Corbynism was terrible and that a new leader needs to appeal to the middle class ( Remain) voter. So what the Labour party needs is a a 21st Century updated version of Tony Blair?

Someone like Keir Starmer ?


----------



## alex_ (Jan 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Can we stop pussy footing around.
> 
> What your getting at is that Corbynism was terrible and that a new leader needs to appeal to the middle class ( Remain) voter. So what the Labour party needs is a a 21st Century updated version of Tony Blair?
> 
> Someone like Keir Starmer ?



no, I’m calling out bullshit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 17, 2020)

Why the massive debate over whether the libdems losing by 18k votes and recording less than one vote for every two the labour candidate got counts as a surge or not, who gives a fuck, they weren't even close


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 17, 2020)

alex_ said:


> no, I’m calling out bullshit.



What exactly is the "bullshit"?

The Labour candidate won by  a big margin. The LD surge didnt work. The idea of a LD surge to any reasonable  person was that they would take seats. This did not happen in Streatham or the rest of inner London. So how you can say im bullshitting is beyond me . Unless you have something else in mind. 

You made you views clear on Brixton Forum recently. That Tony Blair won elections and did a lot of good. Corbyn is a failure. Your posts here are imo a continuation. So lets have it out.  Instead of arguing about percentages of votes. When the Labour left candidate won by big margin.

Swinson went all out for Remain. I got several leaflets from LDs telling me how Corbyn was terrible and the only option was to vote LD or Green .

Didn't  work  in London.

As I said on Brixton Forum I thought it was mistake for Greens locally to get caught  up with LDs.

So do you think Keir Starmer is the best canditate for leadership?


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 17, 2020)

I'd go for Starmer.
For a start he'd take Labour back to the centre ground which is where they need to be to win elections.
Not just that but with his background as an ex-lawyer, his forensic knowledge and attention to detail over the workings of Brexit, will really mean he would wipe the floor clean of Boris and his bluster.
He comes across as a highly competent politician and I believe he out of the candidates would stand the best chance of making Labour electable or at least an effective opposition.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2020)

Replace Starmer with Blair and I'd agree with you 100%


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> I'd go for Starmer.
> For a start he'd take Labour back to the centre ground which is where they need to be to win elections.
> Not just that but with his background as an ex-lawyer, his forensic knowledge and attention to detail over the workings of Brexit, will really mean he would wipe the floor clean of Boris and his bluster.
> He comes across as a highly competent politician and I believe he out of the candidates would stand the best chance of making Labour electable or at least an effective opposition.



So what we really need is some sort of third way between the pure capitalism of the conservative approach and the old labour party approach which focused on trade unions, public ownership, a strong welfare state, government intervention and redistribution of wealth?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2020)

The problem though is investment - where do we get the money to invest in public services like the NHS which is so lacking in investment? It needs something like a private finance initiative to attract the private sector to _invest_ in public services so we can make all the improvements we need.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 18, 2020)

I don't think people knew where Labour stood on Brexit, which for years has been the ever-approaching dominant issue in the news media. Even now Starmer is equivocating. That's the ball that was dropped; i.e not ratifying the results of the referendum. For all the leadership faults (deliberate lack of it really) we can't talk about about people wanting a past that never was and then expect them to stand up for Labour. It (Brexit) will indeed fuck the economy, who will work on the land? Taxes will have to go up as revenue will fall to defray the lost cheap foreign labour.

We'll probably get bullied by America, Russia. The stock market is unpredictable. It's a gamble. I don't think Johnson knows anything we don't. A laissez-faire government is what the country doesn't need. In other words, 'managed decline', marketisation.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 18, 2020)

Effective opposition. Wasn't corbyn's labour the most effective opposition we've seen in a long while despite being a constant fucking mess, after all it moved it on from an austerity consensus to a tory govt committed to spending


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> I'd go for Starmer.
> For a start he'd take Labour back to the centre ground which is where they need to be to win elections.
> Not just that but with his background as an ex-lawyer, his forensic knowledge and attention to detail over the workings of Brexit, will really mean he would wipe the floor clean of Boris and his bluster.
> He comes across as a highly competent politician and I believe he out of the candidates would stand the best chance of making Labour electable or at least an effective opposition.


Do you really think anyone will fall for this?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 18, 2020)

Humberto said:


> I don't think people knew where Labour stood on Brexit, which for years has been the ever-approaching dominant issue in the news media. Even now Starmer is equivocating. That's the ball that was dropped; i.e not ratifying the results of the referendum. For all the leadership faults (deliberate lack of it really) we can't talk about about people wanting a past that never was and then expect them to stand up for Labour. It (Brexit) will indeed fuck the economy, who will work on the land? Taxes will have to go up as revenue will fall to defray the lost cheap foreign labour.
> 
> We'll probably get bullied by America, Russia. The stock market is unpredictable. It's a gamble. I don't think Johnson knows anything we don't. A laissez-faire government is what the country doesn't need. In other words, 'managed decline', marketisation.



There is a contradiction though if you think Brexit is likely to fuck the economy with other negative consequences and yet Labour (with a membership that broadly agreed with you) needed to ratify this result.


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> I'd go for Starmer.
> For a start he'd take Labour back to the centre ground which is where they need to be to win elections.
> Not just that but with his background as an ex-lawyer, his forensic knowledge and attention to detail over the workings of Brexit, will really mean he would wipe the floor clean of Boris and his bluster.
> He comes across as a highly competent politician and I believe he out of the candidates would stand the best chance of making Labour electable or at least an effective opposition.


Lefty1992  eh?  Must. Try. Harder.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2020)

Sue said:


> Lefty1992  eh?  Must. Try. Harder.


Imagine being 28 and thinking Tony Starmer was the answer.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jan 18, 2020)

So either not a lefty or not genuine. Or not either, I suppose. Why bother?


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2020)

It's just wells


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 18, 2020)

treelover said:


> only 7000 voted, not exactly convincing, lost all interest in Momentum, Nandy was good on Neil interview, apparently the political journos are saying she smashed it.


Nandy was good... until she started talking about Scotland. Said should look to Catalonia to see how to deal with “divisive nationalism” in Scotland.


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wasn't corbyn's labour the most effective opposition we've seen in a long while


 Are you living in some form of parallel universe?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2020)

Bye


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 18, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Are you living in some form of parallel universe?



From you, probably, yes. Have your kidneys popped yet


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 18, 2020)

two sheds said:


> The problem though is investment - where do we get the money to invest in public services like the NHS which is so lacking in investment? It needs something like a private finance initiative to attract the private sector to _invest_ in public services so we can make all the improvements we need.


PFI is the last fucking thing that is needed.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 18, 2020)




----------



## two sheds (Jan 18, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> PFI is the last fucking thing that is needed.



But where are we going to get the huge amount of money needed for the NHS without running up huge government debts that will ruin future generations?

(just suggesting something lefty might approve of   )


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 18, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Are you living in some form of parallel universe?



If you want to debate sensibly you have to see both sides of the coin. Not only did Labour set the agenda about austerity and the NHS it also saw off May’s Govt after making it powerless for two years. The Tories ended up doing a number of things to neutralise it, like on the minimum wage. The scale of the reaction to Labour, the sheer effort expended to defeat itshows it was doing something.

Ultimately Labour couldn’t square Brexit and when it couldn’t it foolishly continued with an exposed and by then widely unpopular leader. But it was not all failure by any means.

Don’t think that a lurch to the right solves this. There are other lines of attack for the press, other contradictions to deal with if it does.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 18, 2020)

RLB clearly the best from what I saw of the hustings in my view. Only one to acknowledge that Labour’s Brexit policy cost them the election whilst being utterly unapologetic about Labour’s commitment to socialism and anti-racism and thereby not giving an inch to the Blairite or Blue Labour scum.


----------



## treelover (Jan 18, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


>





Thornberry: big attack on NL's not doing anything to counter de-industralisation during their reign.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 18, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> I'd go for Starmer.
> For a start he'd take Labour back to the centre ground which is where they need to be to win elections.
> Not just that but with his background as an ex-lawyer, his forensic knowledge and attention to detail over the workings of Brexit, will really mean he would wipe the floor clean of Boris and his bluster.
> He comes across as a highly competent politician and I believe he out of the candidates would stand the best chance of making Labour electable or at least an effective opposition.



Did Starmer completely fucking up the last election and being absolutely useless just pass you by? 

"Forensic knowledge".


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 18, 2020)

It goes without say that Jess Philips could barely complete a whole sentence and was entirely useless. Not that the electorate give a shit about basic competence though, given their endorsement of the Boris-Vermin regime.


----------



## Supine (Jan 18, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did Starmer completely fucking up the last election and being absolutely useless just pass you by?
> 
> "Forensic knowledge".



How did he fuck it up, he was sidelined wasn't  he? I hardly saw him public during the election.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 18, 2020)

Supine said:


> How did he fuck it up, he was sidelined wasn't  he? I hardly saw him public during the election.



He means as key architect of the ‘disastrous’ policy, neatly forgetting that momentum, unison and most every other fecker also backed an increasingly Remain position.

Look to the future everyone.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 18, 2020)

Thornberry calls PM a 'callous liar' in furious Labour hustings rant
					

Emily Thornberry described Boris Johnson as a "callous liar" who has a "woman problem" in a furious rant during the Labour leadership hustings.




					www.standard.co.uk
				




Go Emily ! Telling it like it is.....symptomatic of the weird world we live in now as well.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> He means as key architect of the ‘disastrous’ policy, neatly forgetting that momentum, unison and most every other fecker also backed an increasingly Remain position.
> 
> Look to the future everyone.



Not everyone backed the disastrous Remain position, but the point in this case is that Starmer led the charge to do so.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 19, 2020)

Not sure i like the idea of a salesperson for labour. Who are less trusted then salespeople apart from politicians of course.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 19, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Thornberry calls PM a 'callous liar' in furious Labour hustings rant
> 
> 
> Emily Thornberry described Boris Johnson as a "callous liar" who has a "woman problem" in a furious rant during the Labour leadership hustings.
> ...



She is telling it like it is, but I doubt if it really has much traction. People who voted for Boris already have a pretty good idea of what he is like and many of them who Labour are targeting have a dim view of ‘Maggie, Maggie, Maggie’ politics.

First and foremost, Labour needs to be positive with its view of the future while holding Johnson to account on his responsibilities, like the cost of living. His character is a weapon to be used at the right moment not as an obsession.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> He means as key architect of the ‘disastrous’ policy, neatly forgetting that momentum, unison and most every other fecker also backed an increasingly Remain position.
> 
> Look to the future everyone.



I didn't really see it becoming increasingly Remain - fairly constantly saying we need to negotiate a better Leave deal with Europe and then give people the choice. It looked to me like we underestimated just how fucked off people were with the constant voting down the (crap) leave deal and they voted for the 'fuck it' option.

If it _was_ increasingly Remain then I'd have thought it was in reaction to the increasing likelihood of Johnson crashing out with a No Deal and a trade deal with the US that will make us act even more  like the 51st state.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 19, 2020)

For some reason RLB reminds me of Lord Charles.. 



I guess that puts Lansman in the Ray Alan role.

As you were...


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2020)

The centrist fantasy of Lansman as an evil puppet master is a bit fucking rich tbh


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 19, 2020)

Nothing dodgy about the portrayal of the old jewish bloke as the string puller in the shadows obv


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> If you want to debate sensibly you have to see both sides of the coin. Not only did Labour set the agenda about austerity and the NHS it also saw off May’s Govt after making it powerless for two years. The Tories ended up doing a number of things to neutralise it, like on the minimum wage. The scale of the reaction to Labour, the sheer effort expended to defeat itshows it was doing something.
> 
> Ultimately Labour couldn’t square Brexit and when it couldn’t it foolishly continued with an exposed and by then widely unpopular leader. But it was not all failure by any means.
> 
> Don’t think that a lurch to the right solves this. There are other lines of attack for the press, other contradictions to deal with if it does.



Agree about austerity and the NHS and Labour moving the goalposts on those things and moving the centre ground to the left. It is true to say that Labour also made sweeping gains in the 2017 election on a radical, socialist manifesto that promised to leave the EU. It was this which ensured May didn't have a majority to get through the Brexit she craved and ultimately led to her own downfall. So yeah, there were lots of successes and no doubt Corbyn faced an unprecedented barrage of hostility from the right-wing media. 

That said, the leadership on Brexit was weak and so was Corbyn's handling of the anti-semitism problems in the party. As popular as some of the policies were in his manifesto, it also come across more as a wishlist and I don't think enough people believed him and it therefore wasn't credible. There was also all the baggage he had with the IRA in the past and his willingness to share platforms with other unsavoury people, which the media slaughtered him for. Yes, he had a hard time from the press but every Labour leader does, and it's something that you just have to accept and get on with. 

Corbyn wasn't the only problem. Labour's problems go deeper as the party has now lost four elections. So none of Brown, Miliband or Corbyn have been able to reconnect with the working class voters the party has lost. Unions don't have the power they once did and a London-centric Labour has lost touch with the communities it took for granted to win in Scotland and Northern England and inceasingly in Wales. It does well in the metropolitan, student towns and cities but no so well in the left behind towns of the North and Midlands. So any new Labour leader needs to work out how to reconnect with these voters and win them back. 
No it doesn't mean doing away with all of Corbyn's policies as things such as renationalisation of railways and higher taxes for the rich are popular with the public, but the party does need a change of direction away from Corbynism and Momentum. It's given the party a platform that they now need to build on. Nandy or Starmer would be my choices.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 19, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Agree about austerity and the NHS and Labour moving the goalposts on those things and moving the centre ground to the left. It is true to say that Labour also made sweeping gains in the 2017 election on a radical, socialist manifesto that promised to leave the EU. It was this which ensured May didn't have a majority to get through the Brexit she craved and ultimately led to her own downfall. So yeah, there were lots of successes and no doubt Corbyn faced an unprecedented barrage of hostility from the right-wing media.
> 
> That said, the leadership on Brexit was weak and so was Corbyn's handling of the anti-semitism problems in the party. As popular as some of the policies were in his manifesto, it also come across more as a wishlist and I don't think enough people believed him and it therefore wasn't credible. There was also all the baggage he had with the IRA in the past and his willingness to share platforms with other unsavoury people, which the media slaughtered him for. Yes, he had a hard time from the press but every Labour leader does, and it's something that you just have to accept and get on with.
> 
> ...



Nandys’  ‘ f*ck the Scots, they’re as bad as the Catalonians,  the Nat. bstards’ intervention this week was good vfm, must say


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 19, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I didn't really see it becoming increasingly Remain - fairly constantly saying we need to negotiate a better Leave deal with Europe and then give people the choice. It looked to me like we underestimated just how fucked off people were with the constant voting down the (crap) leave deal and they voted for the 'fuck it' option.
> 
> If it _was_ increasingly Remain then I'd have thought it was in reaction to the increasing likelihood of Johnson crashing out with a No Deal and a trade deal with the US that will make us act even more  like the 51st state.



You are right there was a dynamic that the different positions reacted to. That was largely set by the ERG, who ensured May's deal failed and then pushed for no deal. That emboldened Remain and put pressure on Labour. As much as that stance did for Labour in certain constituencies it wasn't really resistable with so many voices calling for it, not just on the right, but also the likes of the Momentum left.


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2020)

Why the left keeps losing
					






					www.newstatesman.com
				




Why the left keeps losing

Anyone have access to this article, some good stuff in the Staggers, but can't afford it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 19, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Agree about austerity and the NHS and Labour moving the goalposts on those things and moving the centre ground to the left. It is true to say that Labour also made sweeping gains in the 2017 election on a radical, socialist manifesto that promised to leave the EU. It was this which ensured May didn't have a majority to get through the Brexit she craved and ultimately led to her own downfall. So yeah, there were lots of successes and no doubt Corbyn faced an unprecedented barrage of hostility from the right-wing media.
> 
> That said, the leadership on Brexit was weak and so was Corbyn's handling of the anti-semitism problems in the party. As popular as some of the policies were in his manifesto, it also come across more as a wishlist and I don't think enough people believed him and it therefore wasn't credible. There was also all the baggage he had with the IRA in the past and his willingness to share platforms with other unsavoury people, which the media slaughtered him for. Yes, he had a hard time from the press but every Labour leader does, and it's something that you just have to accept and get on with.
> 
> ...



If Labour is going to connect with those towns that formerly voted Labour it has to understand what is important there. People who once may have worked in bigger industries or lived in towns where those industries maintained the town, now have very different working conditions, change jobs frequently, are self-employed or run small businesses. Their values tilt accordingly towards self-reliance and they are less easily supported by Unions, often sceptical of them. They will certainly vote for better services, but above all it's the cost of living, housing, utilities, fuel etc that is at the forefront. Labour doesn't have to abandon its left wing policies, it just needs to ensure that it has practical, easily understood ways to help people at the forefront. It needs to bang on about the cost of living everyday untll the next election, exacting Tory promises and highlighting the gap between Tory rhetoric and reality.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2020)

Regarding What Labour Must Do Now I think the party needs a better position re the media.
Options are

1. Do a Blair and suck up. Impossible without Blair-like policies
2. What the current position is/was: pretend it's not happening, rise above it, and then make a little squeak in complaint the day after you lose the election
3. Do a Trump, call the media out for their bias.

I think 3. Fact is Trump is right when he says CNN is fake news. There's a way to do that that isnt as fascistic as Trump, but on all fronts Labour needs to be that bit more combative and forceful.

I expect a rerun of 2 though


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 19, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Agree about austerity and the NHS and Labour moving the goalposts on those things and moving the centre ground to the left.



So labour 2015-19 was a very effective opposition then, the most effective opposition* in most of our lifetimes when you look at how much they shifted the consensus

*arguably farage/ukip/bxp even more effective from an even weaker position tbf


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> If Labour is going to connect with those towns that formerly voted Labour it has to understand what is important there. People who once may have worked in bigger industries or lived in towns where those industries maintained the town, now have very different working conditions, change jobs frequently, are self-employed or run small businesses. Their values tilt accordingly towards self-reliance and they are less easily supported by Unions, often sceptical of them. They will certainly vote for better services, but above all it's the cost of living, housing, utilities, fuel etc that is at the forefront. Labour doesn't have to abandon its left wing policies, it just needs to ensure that it has practical, easily understood ways to help people at the forefront. It needs to bang on about the cost of living everyday untll the next election, exacting Tory promises and highlighting the gap between Tory rhetoric and reality.



AFAICS, that is what Lisa Nandy has been saying,


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 19, 2020)

John Curtice outling the utter bind Labour’s new leader faces:


----------



## Hollis (Jan 19, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nothing dodgy about the portrayal of the old jewish bloke as the string puller in the shadows obv



Oh please... - 'cause all the puppetmasters are the Jews aren't they?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 19, 2020)

Hollis said:


> Oh please... - 'cause all the puppetmasters are the Jews aren't they?



I know you won't have meant it that way but the focus on lansman and subtext of him as the man in the shadows is deeply dubious


----------



## Hollis (Jan 19, 2020)

yes fine.. i will plead the Danny Baker defence on that one.  But you also have the common figure of the machiavellian adviser /spin doctor in the shadows - Cummings, Timothy, Mandelson etc..


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 19, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Regarding What Labour Must Do Now I think the party needs a better position re the media.
> Options are
> 
> 1. Do a Blair and suck up. Impossible without Blair-like policies
> ...



absolutely, the only strategy is to declare an all out war against the vermin media.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> If Labour is going to connect with those towns that formerly voted Labour it has to understand what is important there. People who once may have worked in bigger industries or lived in towns where those industries maintained the town, now have very different working conditions, change jobs frequently, are self-employed or run small businesses. Their values tilt accordingly towards self-reliance and they are less easily supported by Unions, often sceptical of them. They will certainly vote for better services, but above all it's the cost of living, housing, utilities, fuel etc that is at the forefront. Labour doesn't have to abandon its left wing policies, it just needs to ensure that it has practical, easily understood ways to help people at the forefront. It needs to bang on about the cost of living everyday untll the next election, exacting Tory promises and highlighting the gap between Tory rhetoric and reality.



I would say this applies to my are inner London. But they did not stop voting Labour. My neighbours and workmates are in the categories you post about. So they got the mesaage in inner London.

Cost of living is big issue in inner London. Its an expensive city that runs off the back of low paid labour ( with over the years increasingly insecure conditions of employment- zero hours, so called " self employment" being the norm for the working class I know ). 

In inner London also running a small business / shop etc was considered a good alternative for Black people. As historically racism meant they found it diffciult to get employment. But they still are Labour supporters. 

So the question is why in inner London the vote held up and not in other areas of the country where the working class have similar problems,


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 19, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> absolutely, the only strategy is to declare an all out war against the vermin media.



Starmer has done a Billy Bragg and won’t talk to Sun reporters.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 19, 2020)

Hollis said:


> yes fine.. i will plead the Danny Baker defence on that one.  But you also have the common figure of the machiavellian adviser /spin doctor in the shadows - Cummings, Timothy, Mandelson etc..



Yep, Lansman with his twitter account, and open/public heading up of one of the higher profile Lab Party linked organisations of recent times, is v much the '  machiavellian adviser /spin doctor in the shadows' ...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Starmer has done a Billy Bragg and won’t talk to Sun reporters.



Fighting talk from RLB ❤️❤️❤️


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2020)

steeplejack said:


> John Curtice outling the utter bind Labour’s new leader faces:




At our CLP post mortem meeting, i am going to ask, do people there know where the two main testing centres for DLA and PIP are in the city? That they are run as a profit making business, and if they have ever protested outside, ATOS, etc, it will be revealing who knows, etc.


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2020)

Btw, at our CLP post mortem meeting, i am going to ask, do people there know where the two main testing centres for DLA and PIP are in the city? That they are run as a profit making business, and if they have ever protested outside, ATOS, etc, it will be revealing who knows, etc.

Oh, apparently, the branches have got hundreds of new members since the election, wonder where they stand politically


----------



## Supine (Jan 19, 2020)

On a lighter note, the candidates compared as planetary bodies


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2020)

yeah, lets leave vexed questions of what LP member are interested in.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 19, 2020)

On my patch in South  London leader, Jack Hopkins, in Lambeth has been putting out on his weekly emails to members which are grating.

The New Labour lot are the ones in touch with the local people ( forget unpopular libraries and estate "regeneration".) acording the Hopkins

Local community and grass roots members I know beg to differ.

From what Ive been sent the New Labour lot in London are trying to argue the Labour vote was due to them not the Corbyn supporters.

This is complete distortion of the political reality in inner London.


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2020)

Lisa Nandy fleshing out industrial policy, she has spoke in generalities till now

already being accused of being Trump like.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 19, 2020)

treelover said:


> Lisa Nandy fleshing out industrial policy, she has spoke in generalities till now



Not possible under the EU however this is potentially a good starting point about opportunities post Brexit


----------



## kebabking (Jan 19, 2020)

treelover said:


> ...already being accused of being Trump like.



by who, why, and given that Trump has managed to win an election, is that a problem?


----------



## treelover (Jan 19, 2020)

liberal left on twitter, corbynites, etc, protectionism not good, possibly racist, not global enough


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 19, 2020)

Philips’ latest article blaming her shit performance on the hustings format  what a chancer.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 19, 2020)

treelover said:


> Lisa Nandy fleshing out industrial policy, she has spoke in generalities till now
> 
> already being accused of being Trump like.



thats all there in the green new deal bit of the manifesto of the election just gone, including the bit about steel:

"We will establish a Foundation Industries Sector Council to provide a clean and long-term future for our existing heavy industries like steel and glass and fund R&D into newer technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

A thriving steel industry will be vital to the Green Industrial Revolution. Labour will support our steel through public procurement, taking action on industrial energy prices, exempting new capital from business rates, investing in R&D, building three new steel recycling plants and upgrading existing production sites."

Shes not saying anything particularly new I dont think


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2020)

_Good _leadership is the _right _deeds and the _right_ words.  Not just one or the other and certainly not just any old deeds so long as they are deeds.

How much experience of leadership do any of these people (here and in all other leadership campaigns) actually have prior to wanting to become the leader of the whole country, I wonder?  Not that this is a prerequisite, or even necessarily a good thing.  But many of them clearly have no idea what the various styles of leadership are, what the pitfalls are, how to cope with it, even.   Let alone what the models of organisational structure can be, and the ways in which each of them can fail.  You can’t be the kind of leader you want to be if you don’t understand how to make that happen, and trying to invent it yourself from scratch is unnecessary and foolish.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I would ssy this applies to my are inner London. But they did not stop voting Labour. My neighours and workmates are in the categories you post about. So they got the mesaage in inner London.
> 
> Cost of living is big issue in inner London. Its an expensive city that runs off the back of low paid labour.
> 
> So the question is why in inner London the vote held up and not in other areas of the country where the working class have similar problems,



Clearly the hatred of the Tories runs deeper in the bigger cities. Lots of reasons for that, a distrust of its overall values esp immigration policies.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 20, 2020)

ska invita said:


> thats all there in the green new deal bit of the manifesto of the election just gone, including the bit about steel:
> 
> "We will establish a Foundation Industries Sector Council to provide a clean and long-term future for our existing heavy industries like steel and glass and fund R&D into newer technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.
> 
> ...



But she has thrust it into the forefront. It could only lurk before Brexit was settled for Labour.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 21, 2020)

Melt them all down and from them into a behemoth. Or don't bother, it's all too shit to bother.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 21, 2020)

Melt them down and ask them not abstain on fucking up the poorest most miserable and least esteemed section of society.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 21, 2020)

Melt them like robocop 1


----------



## Humberto (Jan 21, 2020)

80s shit. They love that nowadays.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 21, 2020)

This article is ridiculous (Nandy has ‘lived’ because she went to University and said something about ‘fit men’ wtf):









						Lisa Nandy is smart, clever and thoughtful. She’ll never be Labour leader | Suzanne Moore
					

The Wigan MP, who is standing for the leadership of her party, seems to have actually had a life – which sets her apart from the field, says Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore




					www.theguardian.com
				



But it’s part of a noticeable developing narrative about Nandy - she’s professional, smart, resourceful _and_ the candidate who know how Labour need to change to win/be competitive.

I’m happy to accept the first three descriptions but where is the evidence that she knows what Labour need to do? I’m talking here about specific ideas, proposals not just a critique of what went wrong. Once pinned down on specific policy matters, once we get past her vague decentralising agenda and once she’s asked what she’d do it all seems to become a bit _shit?_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2020)

I was just about to post about that - the _life _, and it's strongly suggested that this makes her _normal  _-  actually is/was:



> She studied politics at Newcastle University, graduating in 2001, and obtained a master's degree in public policy from Birkbeck, University of London.[9]
> 
> She worked as a researcher and caseworker for the Labour MP Neil Gerrard.[10] After that, Nandy worked in the voluntary sector as a researcher at the homelessness charity Centrepoint from 2003 to 2005, and then as senior policy adviser at The Children's Society from 2005 until her election in 2010, where she specialised in issues facing young refugees, also acting as adviser to the Children's Commissioner for England and to the Independent Asylum Commission.[3][11][12][13] She served as a Labour councillor for the Hammersmith Broadway ward in Hammersmith and Fulham from 2006 to 2010.[9] As a councillor, she served as shadow cabinet member for housing.[7]


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 21, 2020)

Centre point, aren't they one of those 'charities' who tell people not to give money to homeless folk?


----------



## alex_ (Jan 21, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Centre point, aren't they one of those 'charities' who tell people not to give money to homeless folk?



I assume they gave a research basis for this claim, but it’d be easy to believe that they just believe they want to take their cut.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 21, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I was just about to post about that - the _life _, and it's strongly suggested that this makes her _normal  _-  actually is/was:



Suzanne Moore innit? Enough said. Left Planet Earth about 25 years ago. Just note that what makes her ‘normal’ in Suzanne’s eyes is clanging generalisations about students.

Nandy isn’t normal, but that’s not really a problem in a Prime Minister. It’s the definition of not normal. If she was ‘normal’ she soon wouldn’t be. Empathy and honesty more important.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2020)

I wonder how far back you have to go to get to the last _empathetic, honest_ prime minister


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2020)

deep cynicism and a relentless thirst for power seem to be more useful traits tbh


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 21, 2020)

killer b said:


> I wonder how far back you have to go to get to the last _empathetic, honest_ prime minister



Good point, well made.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 21, 2020)

'Multiple sources' have Jess Phillips dropping out later today.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 21, 2020)

Or as she would probably put it, threatening to drop out.


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This article is ridiculous (Nandy has ‘lived’ because she went to University and said something about ‘fit men’ wtf):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Er, she just spoke, in limited detail' admittedly, aboout developing an industrial strategy, etc.


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Multiple sources' have Jess Phillips dropping out later today.


and she's gone 








						Labour leadership: Jess Phillips quits race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn
					

The Birmingham Yardley MP bows out of the contest as Lisa Nandy gets the backing of the GMB union.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2020)

treelover said:


> Er, she just spoke, in limited detail' admittedly, aboout developing an industrial strategy, etc.


which is, A, nothing to do with that article and, B, simply a recapitulation of existing labour policy.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 21, 2020)

belboid said:


> and she's gone
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another centrist poster child who folded instantly when she stepped outside her media echo chamber.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 21, 2020)

23 nominations, she had. Fucking idiots.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 21, 2020)

aint that the truth.


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2020)

Lisa Nandy to be nominated by the GMB.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 21, 2020)

Cursed tweet


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2020)

what the fuck.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 21, 2020)

and Jess Phillips is out Jess Phillips quits Labour leadership race admitting she can't unite the party


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 21, 2020)

At least it wasn't Harry Potter I guess.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 21, 2020)

Reminds me a bit of Jo Swinson's Beyoncé meme on twitter shortly before she was hung, drawn and quartered in the Prime Ministerial debate in Sheffield.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 21, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Cursed tweet




Also



Not entirely sure what they're going for here, but I'm sure someone had fun making the images


----------



## two sheds (Jan 21, 2020)

Well Phillips accused the other candidates of keeping quiet on antisemitism, so her standing hasn't been a complete waste for the tories.


----------



## moochedit (Jan 21, 2020)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Also
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely sure what they're going for here, but I'm sure someone had fun making the images




Surely that is just asking for more photoshops?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 21, 2020)

Excellent news about the  plazzy working class Brummie dropping out. We just need Thornberry, Nandy, Starmer and Long-Bailey to do the same now....


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 21, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent news about the  plazzy working class Brummie dropping out. We just need Thornberry, Nandy, Starmer and Long-Bailey to do the same now....


Whilst I agree with your opinion that they are an unimpressive selection, someone has to win.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 21, 2020)

Lisa Nandy and Thornbury might actuallly do a bit better than I first thought...

Anyone pushing a coherent and foreful industrial strategy and policy which will ruffle feathers and target neglected areas gets my vote.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 22, 2020)

RLB backs open selection. Another good proposal!









						Long-Bailey backs open selections in “democratic revolution” plan – LabourList
					

Labour leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey is set to reveal her support for open parliamentary candidate selections in a key policy announcement at a London rally…




					labourlist.org


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 22, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Whilst I agree with your opinion that they are an unimpressive selection, someone has to win.



Do they really, though? A melting block of ice is apparently more of a vote-winner for Boris Johnson than Boris Johnson himself. Perhaps it's time to give 'And now, speaking for Her Majesty's Opposition, the judgemental silence of an empty space' a chance.

#onlyhalfjoking


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2020)

Just hear Lisa Nandy interviewed on Radio 4. 

She said she supported Corbyn movinn the consensus away from the Blair years ( away from neolibealism I assume). That Blair had done good things like bring in mimimum wage.  

She didnt say Universal Credit should be scrapped. But that it had been rolled out wthout enough support for people.

She said the welfare state ( in Labour party terms) was to paternalistic. That a discusssion is needed about restructuring it.Going back to its original principles. Helping peoples aspirations. 

She thought the manifesto had to much in it and it "frightened people".

When she said that UC was rolled out without support she said it ws no good bringing in this UC when local services like libraries are being closed.

Im a bit concrned about her comments on "aspiration". If that means putting funding into local services like libraries etc then it might mean something. But it cmes across a bit like the Blair years.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2020)

doouble 
post


----------



## chilango (Jan 22, 2020)

There's a world of difference between individualized aspiration and collective aspiration.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 22, 2020)

Her point about the paternalism of labour's approach to welfare state is bang on tbf


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 22, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> At least it wasn't Harry Potter I guess.



Minus the tits and violence, it is.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Just hear Lisa Nandy interviewed on Radio 4.
> 
> She said she supported Corbyn movinn the consensus away from the Blair years ( away from neolibealism I assume). That Blair had done good things like bring in mimimum wage.
> 
> ...



She supported Corbyn to the extent that she backed Owen Smith, was part of his team.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 22, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Her point about the paternalism of labour's approach to welfare state is bang on tbf



To change welfare everything else needs to change too, especially housing. Welfare should be high benefits with intensive training to help people maintain their lives and move on. Now it’s a resentful hand out to people the state has little aspiration for. The phenomenal cost of housing and poor wages are massive disincentives to people who may be struggling for lots of personal reasons. So it’s good she mentions it, but what’s the aspiration and what’s the alternative to paternalism she wants to offer?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 22, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> To change welfare everything else needs to change too, especially housing. Welfare should be high benefits with intensive training to help people maintain their lives and move on. Now it’s a resentful hand out to people the state has little aspiration for. The phenomenal cost of housing and poor wages are massive disincentives to people who may be struggling for lots of personal reasons. So it’s good she mentions it, but what’s the aspiration and what’s the alternative to paternalism she wants to offer?



Yeah can't argue with that and as chilango says there is a massive difference between an emphasis on collective aspiration, working class aspiration, and individualised social mobility. In terms of meat and bones of what a potential labour govt could do, I dunno, it's never never land anyway, but I did find the paternalism of much of corbynism grating - almost exclusively about food banks etc, this stuff matters but rhetoric shouldn't be limited to tops down stuff about helping the helpless poor, it should be about giving working class people the tools to take positive action, the stuff that is already available and taken for granted by others


----------



## two sheds (Jan 22, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> it should be about giving working class people the tools to take positive action, the stuff that is already available and taken for granted by others


strengthening unions? what else you thinking of?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 22, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah can't argue with that and as chilango says there is a massive difference between an emphasis on collective aspiration, working class aspiration, and individualised social mobility. In terms of meat and bones of what a potential labour govt could do, I dunno, it's never never land anyway, but I did find the paternalism of much of corbynism grating - almost exclusively about food banks etc, this stuff matters but rhetoric shouldn't be limited to tops down stuff about helping the helpless poor, it should be about giving working class people the tools to take positive action, the stuff that is already available and taken for granted by others



This is spot on. Corbynism has too often presented the working class as victims, weak and in need of paternal support (from the state).

Other posters are right about the need for caution and preciseness on this issue. But Nandy is absolutely right on this because WC people don’t see themselves in the main in the terms that Labour did. The key, for me anyway, is to root politics in terms of equality of opportunity and levelling the playing field and away from both meritocracy and Corbyn’s obsession with food banks/UC.

Just on Nandy again though. She is an excellent communicator and I agree with a lot of her analysis of what the problems are. But she remains light on solutions and policy ideas. Maybe this is the campaign strategy or maybe she hasn’t got any...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 22, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Her point about the paternalism of labour's approach to welfare state is bang on tbf


It is but it is also somewhat at odds with her lack of criticism of the UC. Even a "better supported" UC would be (incredibly) _paternalistic_.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 22, 2020)

two sheds said:


> strengthening unions? what else you thinking of?



I dunno. Stronger unions def but beyond that, collective working class bodies that can help with housing, childcare, elderly care, loads of stuff that is beyond the scope of trade unions and which the wealthier can solve by throwing money at it, which holds working class people back. Tbf to corbyn as an individual he did sometimes talk about stuff like this, the potential in everybody that needs unleashing. I suppose it's stuff that is more about giving people the tools to build this stuff from the bottom up that I am talking about, not the from above stuff


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 22, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> It is but it is also somewhat at odds with her lack of criticism of the UC. Even a "better supported" UC would be (incredibly) _paternalistic_.



Yeah. Also very clear nandy is ticking boxes with what she says, sincerity is questionable, so not wanting to spook the horses on UC, mild criticisms and overall praise for blair and corbyn. Find the support for nandy from some quarters interesting, imo she's fairly typical soft left politically


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 22, 2020)

Riklet said:


> Lisa Nandy and Thornbury might actuallly do a bit better than I first thought...
> 
> Anyone pushing a coherent and foreful industrial strategy and policy which will ruffle feathers and target neglected areas gets my vote.


Thornberry wont be doing that unless you mean Islington...
and while personable, we have yet to see Nandy doing that. On Radio 4 this morning interviewed by that smarmy Tory git Robinson she didn’t articulate one industrial policy, but merely tamely returned the gentle lobbed pseudo-questions from Mr Muppet while pretending she doesn’t hate Corbyn. So much for honesty: at least you knew where ‘stab him in the front’ Phillips stood.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 22, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Just on Nandy again though. She is an excellent communicator and I agree with a lot of her analysis of what the problems are. But she remains light on solutions and policy ideas. Maybe this is the campaign strategy or maybe she hasn’t got any...


I strongly surmise being light on solutions is her strategy: because if she doesn’t support any anti-capitalist policies we are back to Ed Milband-lite....


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 22, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> RLB backs open selection. Another good proposal!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i agree but while necessary not sufficient...


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2020)

To add another comment Lisa Nandy made on radio this morning was that Labour should argue a positive case for immigration even if that was not popular.


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah. Also very clear nandy is ticking boxes with what she says, sincerity is questionable, so not wanting to spook the horses on UC, mild criticisms and overall praise for blair and corbyn. Find the support for nandy from some quarters interesting, imo she's fairly typical soft left politically







> She was also critical of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for not doing enough in the 1990s to overturn Margaret Thatcher’s economic legacy.
> 
> 
> “I’m not going to trash the legacy of the last Labour government because things like the minimum wage were complete game-changers in towns like Wigan, and the investment that went into health and education was really important.
> ...




She has just done a really good and very detailed speech defending the welfare state, benefits and claimants, afaik, Corbyn never made a similar speech,

though she did seem to believe Blair/Brown's welfare to work programmes had value


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> This is spot on. Corbynism has too often presented the working class as victims, weak and in need of paternal support (from the state).
> 
> Other posters are right about the need for caution and preciseness on this issue. But Nandy is absolutely right on this because WC people don’t see themselves in the main in the terms that Labour did. The key, for me anyway, is to root politics in terms of equality of opportunity and levelling the playing field and away from both meritocracy and Corbyn’s obsession with food banks/UC.
> 
> Just on Nandy again though. She is an excellent communicator and I agree with a lot of her analysis of what the problems are. But she remains light on solutions and policy ideas. Maybe this is the campaign strategy or maybe she hasn’t got any...



I agree with you to a point, a lot of focus groups have said they didn't like being seen as victims, ex miners, de-industrialed, etc, but the fact is, may are victims, foodbank use is massive, UC is a disasters, sanctions and testing is cruel, we are going like America where all this is just a given, the one show has Football Fans for food banks as heroes, and were cheered by the audinece, they may be, but now as Smith wanted, they are an integral part of the welfare state. I do think that any welfare/social security policy does need to give agency back to people, but that was NL's approach, welfare to work, skill training, etc, and it ended with bullying claimants and sanctions, Queen Emma of A4E making milllions from forced claimants and then turbo-charged by the Tories, many suicides


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 22, 2020)

billy_bob said:


> Do they really, though? A melting block of ice is apparently more of a vote-winner for Boris Johnson than Boris Johnson himself. Perhaps it's time to give 'And now, speaking for Her Majesty's Opposition, the judgemental silence of an empty space' a chance.
> 
> #onlyhalfjoking



In a setup where the media will only let you challenge the tories if you move to within a rizla's breadth of tory policies, the only winning move is not to play.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 22, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> In a setup where the media will only let you challenge the tories if you move to within a rizla's breadth of tory policies, the only winning move is not to play.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 22, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah. Also very clear nandy is ticking boxes with what she says, sincerity is questionable, so not wanting to spook the horses on UC, mild criticisms and overall praise for blair and corbyn. Find the support for nandy from some quarters interesting, imo she's fairly typical soft left politically



You would have thought she would be rejected out of hand for her support for Smith.  It’s not long shot to imagine her moving quite a long way to the right in office, beyond Starmer or Thornberry. 

But perfect isn’t on offer here and with a party membership firmly to the left it’s open to take a broader view on what she has to offer.


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2020)

I agree with you to a point, but on social security no, she wrote to say she have voted against Smith's WRB(she was in late pregnancy) which of course most LP MP's abstained

BTw, isn't it time to update the poll, she is third at moment in other polls!


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> RLB backs open selection. Another good proposal!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. Read that. I wonder how the other candidates will respond.

I also think local councils need a shake up. Labour Cllrs in my area treat the being a Cllr as a job for life. I would like to see mandatory reselection for Labour Cllrs. At moment in Lambeth its selection of candidates is done through committee run by the New Labour clique who control the local party. Including getting rid of Cllrs who don't tow the line. Even if they are popular ( stick up for residents).

It would be good if the Labour party was democratised at local Council level. With much more say for members.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Yes. Read that. I wonder how the other candidates will respond.
> 
> I also think local councils need a shake up. Labour Cllrs in my area treat the being a Cllr as a job for life. I would like to see mandatory reselection for Labour Cllrs. At moment in Lambeth its selection of candidates is done through committee run by the New Labour clique who control the local party. Including getting rid of Cllrs who don't tow the line. Even if they are popular ( stick up for residents).
> 
> It would be good if the Labour party was democratised at local Council level. With much more say for members.


it would be good if the labour party at local authority level stopped working for developers and gentrifiers.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if the labour party at local authority level stopped working for developers and gentrifiers.



Would be miraculous too.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if the labour party at local authority level stopped working for developers and gentrifiers.


Unfortunately most regeneration schemes in cities and towns are based on developers and gentrification


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Unfortunately most regeneration schemes in cities and towns are based on developers and gentrification


if it involves the ejection of then existing population to be replaced by well-heeled interlopers then it's not regeneration at all but gentrification


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> if it involves the ejection of then existing population to be replaced by well-heeled interlopers then it's not regeneration at all but gentrification


I take your point but most town centre regeneration is based on building housing with  few or none at affordable rents or prices and shopping malls for chain stores. The regeneration is that it creates low skilled retail and catering jobs .


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2020)

treelover said:


> She has just done a really good and very detailed speech defending the welfare state, benefits and claimants, afaik, Corbyn never made a similar speech,


he literally won the leadership election because he made a speech condemning cuts to welfare benefits and demanding that Labour oppose them while Andy Burnham (the Lisa Nandy of his day) simply said abstain.  Nandy has said she would have voted with Corbyn and maybe she would, but I doubt very much that she would have led the campaign in the first place. 

As for detail, the manifesto was full of it, tho Nandy wants to roll back some of those commitments.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 22, 2020)

Just saw someone refer to Philips’ withdrawing from the leadership contest as being ‘like a Kendall in the wind’. Had to pass it on.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 22, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just saw someone refer to Philips’ withdrawing from the leadership contest as being ‘like a Kendall in the wind’. Had to pass it on.



Full context:


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2020)

> One example that I’ll give of how I was crushed in the election campaign was one of my constituents was on a driveway and we were having a chat about whether she was going to vote Labour - her and her husband - and they worked hard, they bought their own home.
> And they wanted to have that recognised and they felt that we were a party that was giving handouts and not helping people like them.
> And I tried to explain, because I was crushed at that point, because I thought we are the party that’s for you, we’re there to pick you up if you fall on hard times and you lose your job. We want you to do well, we want you to work hard and get paid well and have a decent life, be able to buy your own home, if that’s what you want, be able to go on holiday, and for your children to be given the best possible education so that they can climb whatever ladder they want to, and reach their aspirational goals.
> But they didn’t believe we were doing that, despite that being the fundamental principles that drives every single one of us as Labour party members.
> ...





Long bailey goes for the aspirational vote?

Guardian compares it to Blair.


----------



## andysays (Jan 22, 2020)

treelover said:


> Long bailey goes for the aspirational vote?
> 
> Guardian compares it to Blair.


Judging by that quote, she appears to be all about individual aspiration, not about the community aspiration which (I think) chilango mentioned above.

And if RLB and Labour can't go beyond individual aspiration, where the Tories will beat them every time, towards some sort of aspiration to change society for the better for everyone, which is beyond owning a house with a driveway and having a nice holiday, then she and they will lose.


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2020)

> f you look at voting figures for the so-called Red Wall from 1997-2019 you will see that there was no Red Wall because the Labour vote collapsed between 1997-2010, so nothing to do with Corbyn, in fact the figures picked up considerably in 2017 before the manic media onslaught, antisemitism myth and other smears took hold as well as the reduction of a whole election to Remain/Leave binary non-thought.
> As an example, here's Redcar (vote share for Labour):
> 1997: 67.3%
> 2001: 60.3%
> ...



posted on CIF, looks like it was Blair/Brown/Milliband where the rot set in.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 22, 2020)

Obviously the red wall was a load of bollocks, it was only invented six months ago, and labour's separation from its w/c base developing from new labour surely well established. Antisemitism myth tho


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2020)

> Those figures don’t mean much out of context. You’re ignoring the effect of other parties like the Lib Dems – who actually won the seat in 2010 (so your figure is wrong) – and the dreaded UKIP. 1997 was actually a bit of an anomaly so you can’t start there. Let’s look at the full series of stats:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
> Labour share of vote in Redcar:
> 
> ...



Someone has challenged these figures, too complicated for me.


----------



## chilango (Jan 22, 2020)

andysays said:


> Judging by that quote, she appears to be all about individual aspiration, not about the community aspiration which (I think) chilango mentioned above.
> 
> And if RLB and Labour can't go beyond individual aspiration, where the Tories will beat them every time, towards some sort of aspiration to change society for the better for everyone, which is beyond owning a house with a driveway and having a nice holiday, then she and they will lose.



Indeed.

Unfortunately individualized aspiration is so embedded in society now it's hard to conceptualise beyond it.

It feeds into, and feeds off, ideas around choice, and "failures" (like being poor or sick) being a result of poor choices, not "trying hard enough" and a lack of aspiration.

We see this in current education debates around "the soft tyranny of low expectations", "growth mindset" and interventions to raise individualized aspiration.

Social mobility, and the lack of it, is framed like this too. Around the need to "realize the potential" of talented individuals.

I could go on...


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2020)

Both Nandy and now Bailey have used the very loaded term, 'handout' when talking about social security.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 22, 2020)

treelover said:


> Both Nandy and now Bailey have used the very loaded term, 'handout' when talking about social security.



There's much to criticise about RLB but it is clear she is quoting others' words.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be good if the labour party at local authority level stopped working for developers and gentrifiers.



At our Lambeth level its been for years run by "New" Labour.

As one of our Cllrs once said to me years back "there is to much social housing" in my Council Ward. The New Labour idea was that Council housing was part of the post war welfare state which was out of date in the modern world. Part of dependency culture. The new idea was "positive gentrification" and "mixed sustainable communities". Giviing people a hand up not a handout. Which meant in practise regeneration of estates / local areas to bring in the middle class. New Labour bought into idea of "sink estates".

He is stll a Cllr. A lot of Cllrs owe their careers in the party to Tony Blair era. They never supported Corbyn. Even my Cllr quoted above. And he  has has always been a complete loyalist . They saw Corbyn as so alien to there way of thinking that they could not support him in any way.

Ive nothing personal against my Cllrs but its necessary to see the ideology they hold. This is how they still think.

( to add I bunp into an ex New Labour Cllr sometimes. He did say to me perhaps they should have built Council housing in Blair years)

They dont like the term New Labour. Its now they are "progressive".

Bringing it back to the leadership. Lisa Nandy going on about "aspiration"  rings alarm bells for me. Its how my New Labour Council think.

For example imo gentrification is a class issue. This isnt about portraying the working class as victims. Its a fact and any Labour Cllr in central London should just say that. Even if their powers to do much about it are limited.

Im really concerned that Labour party hopefuls like Lisa Nandy are using the same language as New Labour did years ago.


----------



## Marty1 (Jan 22, 2020)

treelover said:


> Lisa Nandy to be nominated by the GMB.



Comes out top with Emily Thornberry  in focus group.












						WATCH: Focus group rejects Labour leadership frontrunners – LabourList
					

A focus group has rejected the Labour leadership frontrunners, instead saying that they could see Lisa Nandy or Emily Thornberry winning their vote in an…




					labourlist.org


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> I'd go for Starmer.
> For a start he'd take Labour back to the centre ground which is where they need to be to win elections.


It is an irrelevant and obsolete myth that Labour can only win elections as a liberal centrist party. It's at least 7 years past its sell-by date, i.e. when the electorate started emphatically rejecting everything centrist


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2020)

It wasn’t even true back in 1997.  I remember that election so well.  Everybody really fucking _hated _the Tory party.  They were the “nasty party”.  Labour could have been anything at all and still won that election, and at least the next.  Cameron’s success was to realise he needed to embrace social liberalism to free them of the taint of Lilley and Howard and Tebbitt and Portillo etc


----------



## Supine (Jan 23, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> It is an irrelevant and obsolete myth that Labour can only win elections as a liberal centrist party. It's at least 7 years past its sell-by date, i.e. when the electorate started emphatically rejecting everything centrist



Simply not true. There have been no labour governments for 45 years apart from blair.


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

cantsin said:


> Nandys’  ‘ f*ck the Scots, they’re as bad as the Catalonians,  the Nat. bstards’ intervention this week was good vfm, must say


Bit of an own goal that was and not a way to win over the Scottish voters who Labour desperately need to get back into government.


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> It is an irrelevant and obsolete myth that Labour can only win elections as a liberal centrist party. It's at least 7 years past its sell-by date, i.e. when the electorate started emphatically rejecting everything centrist


Sorry but Blair won three elections, two by landslides on exactly that platform. He's the only Labour prime minister to have tasted success in 40 years. What does that tell you?


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

And you know what I want to see again? One of the best nights in the Labour party's history in the 97 election.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Sorry but Blair won three elections, two by landslides on exactly that platform. He's the only Labour prime minister to have tasted success in 40 years. What does that tell you?


That people desperately, viscerally hated the Tory party at the time.

How old were you in 1997, Lefty1992?


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

kabbes said:


> That people desperately, viscerally hated the Tory party at the time.
> 
> How old were you in 1997, Lefty1992?


Five.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 23, 2020)

1997 was the first election I was old enough to vote in. I duly went out and voted Labour, stayed up late and celebrated and everything. It did feel like a new era, to me anyway.

After that I didn't vote Labour again until 2017. I've no interest in going back there.


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

kabbes said:


> That people desperately, viscerally hated the Tory party at the time.
> 
> How old were you in 1997, Lefty1992?


Agreed there was a hatred towards the Tories and that they were on their way out but Blair modernised Labour and gave them a vision which made them electable again. If they'd been a hard left party held to ransom by the unions like they were during the Thatcher years, they would have lost. Kinnock started the modernisation by taking on the unions and came close in 1992 and Blair finished the job off.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Five.



You’ll be a big hit here Lefty...


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

why are you calling yourself 'lefty' this time round? you don't seem to have any recognisably left politics.


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

'held to ransom by the unions'


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> but Blair modernised Labour and gave them a vision which made them electable again. If they'd been a hard left party held to ransom by the unions



Can you give an example of this process? How did the ransoming of Labour by unions work in practise?


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> why are you calling yourself 'lefty' this time round? you don't seem to have any recognisably left politics.


So anyone who doesn't fit the hard left type isn't really left wing? Great logic.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Five.


Then you have literally no idea what you’re talking about.  Even people in very right-wing areas — and I was living in one of them — were desperate to get rid of the Major government.  His party were massively socially conservative — anti-gay, anti-women, anti-minority, anti-everything and everyone except white heterosexual men.  It went heavily against the social liberalisation of the nineties and people literally hated the Tory MPs, even if they agreed with right wing economics.  Anybody would have beaten them.


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Then you have literally no idea what you’re talking about.  Even people in very right-wing areas — and I was living in one of them — were desperate to get rid of the Major government.  His party were massively socially conservative — anti-gay, anti-women, anti-minority, anti-everything and everyone except white heterosexual men.  It went heavily against the social liberalisation of the nineties and people literally hated the Tory MPs, even if they agreed with right wing economics.  Anybody would have beaten them.



Rather like anyone would beat Labour right now. They're just as wrapped up in their own views and completely out of touch as the Tories were until Cameron arrived. The last election showed this. Labour need to go through the same process as the Tories by accepting some hard truths, facing up to why they went wrong and their failures, and finding someone with the vision to make the party electable again. Or you can retreat to the comfort of a few hundred thousand members agreeing with you?


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> So anyone who doesn't fit the hard left type isn't really left wing? Great logic.


anyone who repeats tory talking points like 'held to ransom by the unions' isn't left wing, yeah.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> anyone who repeats tory talking points like 'held to ransom by the unions' isn't left wing, yeah.



I’ve asked Lefty1992 to demonstrate how this worked. A concrete example from _any point in the history of the Labour Party _will do.


----------



## Lefty1992 (Jan 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> anyone who repeats tory talking points like 'held to ransom by the unions' isn't left wing, yeah.


Well yeah with the Winter of Discontent in 1978-79, strikes galore and blackouts. 
And my point is that the hard left type seem totally unaccepting of other view points. They don't seem to acknowledge that Labour is supposed to be a broad church and the main opposition party with a goal of trying to get into government, not some protest movement. I'm centre left and want to see a Labour party that can make a difference get back in government, hence why I call myself Lefty.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

I hate it when people discuss 1997 as it just brings back to me how shite the mid to late 90s were, I mean in every way not just politically, it was embarrassing. Oasis and lager and men behaving badly, loaded and massive jeans, reebok classics, union jack cushions, awful time.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

Overwhelmed by dreary indie and will self


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I hate it when people discuss 1997 as it just brings back to me how shite the mid to late 90s were, I mean in every way not just politically, it was embarrassing. Oasis and lager and men behaving badly, loaded and massive jeans, reebok classics, union jack cushions, awful time.



Oasis v Blur.... the new class signifiers


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Well yeah with the Winter of Discontent in 1978-79, strikes galore and blackouts.



Is this your example?

Is this where you want the debate over trade union ransoms? Over the social contract?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Well yeah with the Winter of Discontent in 1978-79, strikes galore and blackouts.
> And my point is that the hard left type seem totally unaccepting of other view points. They don't seem to acknowledge that Labour is supposed to be a broad church and the main opposition party with a goal of trying to get into government, not some protest movement. I'm centre left and want to see a Labour party that can make a difference get back in government, hence why I call myself Lefty.


There werent any blackouts in 1978/9 son. Blackouts  were imposed by the Tories during the miners industrial action in 1974 . The Tories called an election camapigning  on the slogan  'Who Governs Britain' and  Labour  won the election and settled the dispute giving the miners a 35% pay rise., a year later the NUM won a further rise.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Well yeah with the Winter of Discontent in 1978-79, strikes galore and blackouts.



Conflating the events of early 1974 and late 1978/early 1979 does not indicate that you've got a good grasp of who the 'goodies' & 'baddies' were during these periods.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

Bodies piled up on the streets, rabid dogs eating babies, everybody had a beige vauxhall viva


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Bodies piled up on the streets, rabid dogs eating babies, everybody had a beige vauxhall viva


And it was still better than life under Boris Johnson.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

My favourite bit of labour liberal centrist revisionism is the the recasting of Kinnock as somebody who enjoyed some sort of success instead of being a terrible failure of a human being who fell in the sea


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

And enjoyable rinse of Jess Philips right here: Lynsey Hanley | Performing an Idea of Ordinariness · LRB 22 January 2020

"_Everywoman: One Woman’s Truth about Speaking the Truth_, which came out in 2017, is an everyday tale of one middle-class city-dweller’s struggle to reach Westminster from a professional public-sector background, having gone to a highly selective grammar school and two Russell Group universities."


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Bit of an own goal that was and not a way to win over the Scottish voters who Labour desperately need to get back into government.



Labour doesnt need to worry about winning back Scot voters, that's over, pact with SNP and support for IndyRef #2 is only way fwd now - f*ck Lab unionism


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Well yeah with the Winter of Discontent in 1978-79, strikes galore and blackouts.
> And my point is that the hard left type seem totally unaccepting of other view points. They don't seem to acknowledge that Labour is supposed to be a broad church and the main opposition party with a goal of trying to get into government, not some protest movement. I'm centre left and want to see a Labour party that can make a difference get back in government, hence why I call myself Lefty.


Hmmm


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Labour is supposed to be a broad church and the main opposition party with a goal of trying to get into government, not some protest movement.


do you mean as opposed to the tories being the natural party of government the labour party is the natural party of opposition?


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

cantsin said:


> Labour doesnt need to worry about winning back Scot voters, that's over, pact with SNP and support for IndyRef #2 is only way fwd now - f*ck Lab unionism


labour's only route to power is through a pact which offers a referendum which will immediately see them out of power?


----------



## Part-timah (Jan 23, 2020)

Have we had this yet? If not...


----------



## andysays (Jan 23, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean as opposed to the tories being the natural party of government the labour party is the natural party of opposition?


You could certainly be forgiven for thinking that...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2020)

Has anyone else seen that stuff alleging that RLB hates the Chinese? Doesn't look it will stick as a smear, but does it suggest that she's rattled the right people.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Has anyone else seen that stuff alleging that RLB hates the Chinese? Doesn't look it will stick as a smear, but does it suggest that she's rattled the right people.




what??


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> what??









hey ho


----------



## andysays (Jan 23, 2020)

I think I read some reference to her having a relaxing evening with a Chinese takeaway the other day, maybe some wires got crossed somewhere


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2020)




----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> hey ho



Hmmm. So has RLB said anything about Chinese for Labour and it’s position on the Chinese state?


----------



## Arbeter Fraynd (Jan 23, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> There werent any blackouts in 1978/9 son. Blackouts  were imposed by the Tories during the miners industrial action in 1974 . The Tories called an election camapigning  on the slogan  'Who Governs Britain' and  Labour  won the election and settled the dispute giving the miners a 35% pay rise., a year later the NUM won a further rise.



Can anyone reccomend a good history / analysis of that period? I'm older than Lefty92, but not by enough to remember the 70s...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Hmmm. So has RLB said anything about Chinese for Labour and it’s position on the Chinese state?


Not as far as I can see. I've not even been able to tell what C for L's posn. on the PRC state might be. . .


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

The chinese labour affiliated group has endorsed Nandy, and I understand some of the crank accounts may have been saying bad things about the chinese in response (I've not seen any of these bad things so I've no idea what), and some pearl clutching centrists have been going 'see! what starts with the jews never stops with the jews!' on twitter as a result. 

I've not been moved to look into it beyond thinking 'this is why I deleted my politics twitter account'


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2020)

Aye, but from what I can tell it's not even crank accounts. I mean anti-semitism was/is a real problem, but this on the other hand seems to have been created entirely _ex nihilo_.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2020)

Revealing how quickly some of the journo's jump on it, power without responsibility.


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

Delete politics twitter guys, it's worthless. Really.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

From maoist cycles to sinophobia: twitter and the labour party 2015 - 2020


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> It is an irrelevant and obsolete myth that Labour can only win elections as a liberal centrist party. It's at least 7 years past its sell-by date, i.e. when the electorate started emphatically rejecting everything centrist


When have they gone for the far left?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> From maoist cycles to sinophobia: twitter and the labour party 2015 - 2020


A revolution is not a tea party.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> When have they gone for the far left?



Don't you get bored mate


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Don't you get bored mate


Back at ya.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Back at ya.


He doesn't say one paranoid raddled thing over and over.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

Not yet anyway


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

Wouldn't it have been great if Corbyn _had_ been pushing far left politics though huh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not yet anyway


Can always go back to the SP when the urge comes upon ye.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> labour's only route to power is through a pact which offers a referendum which will immediately see them out of power?



who said that ?


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

Isn't that the logical conclusion to this? If Labour's only route to a majority is through a pact with a party who's MPs would no longer form part of that majority after a (successful) second indie ref, then it's not really much of a way forward is it?


cantsin said:


> pact with SNP and support for IndyRef #2 is only way fwd now


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> The chinese labour affiliated group has endorsed Nandy, and* I understand *some of the crank accounts may have been saying bad things about the chinese in response *(I've not seen any of these bad things so I've no idea what)*, and some pearl clutching centrists have been going 'see! what starts with the jews never stops with the jews!' on twitter as a result.
> 
> I've not been moved to look into it beyond thinking 'this is why I deleted my politics twitter account'



this was a total hoax, and the only people claiming 'cranks ' were at it were the usual cynical centrist rabble  .... well done on quitting twitter , but to then come on here  and say you ' understand ' this happened on twitter is daft as buggery - edit : have just seen the ' may have', but still.... honest, there wasn't a single supporting available screen grab etc


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

But it was what I understood, and I don't care enough to check whether I was mistaken. But tbh I'm not here to argue about all the dull shit that goes on on politics twitter and regret saying anything now.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> But it was what I understood, and I don't care enough to check whether I was mistaken. But tbh I'm not here to argue about all the dull shit that goes on on politics twitter and regret saying anything now.



it was twit/pol at it's v worse, but the fact this total hoax percolates outwards / IRL  is genuinely concerning, and w/o doubt strengthens the actual cranks sense of righteous persecution etc, whilst probably shoring up the idea of racist Lab


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 23, 2020)

Honestly I suspect no normal people will even hear about labour left types hating the chinese much less believe it


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

cantsin said:


> it was twit/pol at it's v worse, but the fact this total hoax percolates outwards / IRL  is genuinely concerning, and w/o doubt strengthens the actual cranks sense of righteous persecution etc, whilst probably shoring up the idea of racist Lab


I don't know how much it has percolated outwards tbh - I maintain a twitter account for music stuff and there's a little crossover which is the only reason I knew anything about it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2020)

Going back a few days....at the hustings RLB said Labour was “the party of the Lever brothers and Ralph Miliband” 

Are there other Lever brothers to the two who set up the Lever, as in Unilever, soap factory? Cos the main guy there was a notorious Liberal, and the only connection with labour I can find regards there use of forced Labour in the Belgian Congo.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2020)

She said _Leaver bros._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2020)

Leslie and Harold though.

Not a good call.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2020)

Miliband is also a really bad call, only joining at the end of his life in utter despair.

(edit: and after 40 years arguing labour is not and cannot ever be the party we need)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2020)

Oh god, she's 'doing jews' isn't she?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 23, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, she's 'doing jews' isn't she?



She's got time now the campaign is over - she was _too busy _before...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, she's 'doing jews' isn't she?



That does seem to be the idea here. One that no doubt, whoever dreamt it up, thought was a really smart way of putting clear water between her and corby on AS.

“Look at her heroes.... all Jews’....

No Chinese on the list though


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Honestly I suspect no normal people will even hear about labour left types hating the chinese much less believe it



It’s bizarre. If it’s a smear it’s a really piss poor one. I presume the nomination for Nandy by the Chinese for Labour Group has led twitter loons off down this path?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 23, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> “Look at her heroes.... all Jews’....



Fanny Kaplan?


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Leslie and Harold though.
> 
> Not a good call.


aah, ta. Leslie doesn't seem too awful. Tho being knighted by two popes may affect his jewish credentials a bit.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 23, 2020)

killer b said:


> "_Everywoman: One Woman’s Truth about Speaking the Truth_, which came out in 2017, is an everyday tale of one middle-class city-dweller’s struggle to reach Westminster from a professional public-sector background, having gone to a highly selective grammar school and two Russell Group universities."


That's great.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> That's great.


Not forgetting that Jessica also had a spell working for Mummy & Daddy's 'healthcare' events company as a project manager.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 23, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> That's great.



Isn’t it. Even more enjoyably it was written by someone who grew up on Chelmsley Wood, the biggest council estate in Birmingham, and from a genuine WC background


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2020)

belboid said:


> Going back a few days....at the hustings RLB said Labour was “the party of the Lever brothers and Ralph Miliband”
> 
> Are there other Lever brothers to the two who set up the Lever, as in Unilever, soap factory? Cos the main guy there was a notorious Liberal, and the only connection with labour I can find regards there use of forced Labour in the Belgian Congo.



they looked after their workers, obv in a paternalistic way, but living in Port Sunlight had many attractions.


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2020)

treelover said:


> they looked after their workers, obv in a paternalistic way, but living in Port Sunlight had many attractions.


Not the ones in the Congo they didn’t.  But they aren’t really human, supposedly.  

but that’s liberals for you.


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2020)

Port sunlight is lush, plenty of attractions to living there now too.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2020)

low rent isn't one of them, my dad worked on the lines, could never afford to live there now,


----------



## killer b (Jan 24, 2020)

I'm sure that's true, although it's also true of pretty much everywhere other than shithouse slums and the last remnants of social housing.


----------



## andysays (Jan 24, 2020)

UNITE has announced it's backing RLB


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 24, 2020)

The EC has decided it’s recommending support for RLB and Richard Burgon for deputy.

Fortunately, the EC is irrelevant to the rank and file.

The decision to support Burgon is particularly incomprehensible. He seems like a decent fella but he’s FUCKING USELESS.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for RLB either as her running mate (and the candidate who the clueless pathetic pandering twats should have backed) is Angela Rayner.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 24, 2020)

What's the score with burgon/rayner, is rayner seen as a liability or not quite on message by left of labour? Bit out of the loop on all the labour stuff cos most of the time it's pretty boring


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 24, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What's the score with burgon/rayner, is rayner seen as a liability or not quite on message by left of labour? Bit out of the loop on all the labour stuff cos most of the time it's pretty boring



I think Rayner fails the ‘true believer’ test demanded by the tin gods of the union. Despite her loyalty to Corbyn.

In constant Burgon is the campaign group candidate and happy to defend any shit he’s told to.

Given her class background, her credibility as a union steward and the fact she gets it on Brexit you’d think we’d be doing everything to back her.

Anyway, she will walk the deputy leader election and Lenny will have backed the losing candidate. An abysmal decision from the EC and a GS who should have fucked off years ago


----------



## Marty1 (Jan 24, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Rather like anyone would beat Labour right now. They're just as wrapped up in their own views and completely out of touch as the Tories were until Cameron arrived. The last election showed this. Labour need to go through the same process as the Tories by accepting some hard truths, facing up to why they went wrong and their failures, and finding someone with the vision to make the party electable again. Or you can retreat to the comfort of a few hundred thousand members agreeing with you?



I agree and so does Lisa Nandy.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 24, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I agree and so does Lisa Nandy.



Agree with what? Specifically.

Corbyn is gone. The disastrous Brexit policy similarly.

So, what else should they ditch. What is the vision you think will connect with voters. Instead of posting videos that don’t say what you say they do let’s have some specific ideas


----------



## Marty1 (Jan 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agree with what? Specifically.
> 
> Corbyn is gone. The disastrous Brexit policy similarly.
> 
> So, what else should they ditch. What is the vision you think will connect with voters. Instead of posting videos that don’t say what you say they do let’s have some specific ideas



Agree that Labour need to understand what went wrong and learn from their mistakes which doesn’t appear to be happening considering the front runner to replace Corbyn gave him a 10/10 rating as leader.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 25, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agree with what? Specifically.
> 
> Corbyn is gone. The disastrous Brexit policy similarly.
> 
> So, what else should they ditch. What is the vision you think will connect with voters. Instead of posting videos that don’t say what you say they do let’s have some specific ideas



Taylor Swift? Brittany Spears? Christ on a bike, the woman is 40 years old and wants to be Prime Minister. Sorry, tittle tattle. I’ll watch the rest of it.

I’m non factional and from the left, says Owen Smith supporter.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 25, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Taylor Swift? Brittany Spears? Christ on a bike, the woman is 40 years old and wants to be Prime Minister. Sorry, tittle tattle. I’ll watch the rest of it.
> 
> I’m non factional and from the left, says Owen Smith supporter.



She doesn’t do badly Tbf. She is a little light on the substance but the interviewers won’t be quiet and let her build on her answers.

Maybe she hasn’t got them yet, but she does have a few of the right questions which is a start.


----------



## andysays (Jan 25, 2020)

Lots of people joining the party to vote in the leadership election, but according to the BBC it's likely to benefit Starmer rather than Long Bailey

Labour Party sees surge in membership amid leadership race


> Of the CLP chairmen and chairwomen and MPs who spoke to Newsnight, virtually all seemed certain these members joined in order to have a say about the next Labour Party leader. In 2015 and 2016, the two Labour leadership contests in which Jeremy Corbyn ran, much was made about the "entryism" or programme of enlisting new members to vote for the left-wing candidate.





> The intentions of all the new members this time is not certain - there are simply too many of them to be sure. However, sources within local parties are confident many if not most had joined to vote against the left-wing candidate, a reversal of what happened four years ago.


Nice job of smearing those who joined last time to vote for Corbyn, incidentally...


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 25, 2020)

andysays said:


> Lots of people joining the party to vote in the leadership election, but according to the BBC it's likely to benefit Starmer rather than Long Bailey
> 
> Labour Party sees surge in membership amid leadership race
> 
> ...



Is it? It’s accurate that they joined to vote for Corbyn and it’s saying that a big deal was made of that. You could read it as noting that previous bias almost asking ‘will this ‘entryism’ be treated the same way?’


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2020)

Imagine joining the labour party to vote for Keir Starmer. Big 'we want to speak to the manager' energy in those pricks.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 25, 2020)

There are a lot of remain weirdos out there though, maybe it's not complete bollocks. Anyway if so that's that fucked


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 25, 2020)

I reckon most of them aren't going near the local parties and the journalists are hearing what they want to tbh


----------



## Azrael (Jan 25, 2020)

What's behind the idea that Starmer's some ultra-Remainer? His record doesn't back it: he repeated the absurd six tests with a straight face; did nothing of note to defend the single market; and of all things, made his shadow cabinet stand over a customs union. He now says that he considers Brexit settled (leaving just enough wiggle room to change his mind down the line). Perhaps worst of all, he let others in the shadow cabinet stop him taking apart the "get Brexit done" slogan in the 2019 election.

It mostly seems to hinge on that conference speech where he said that no one's ruling out Remain being on the ballot of a second referendum (followed, once applause was in the bag, with the lawyerly caveat "at conference"). If the Cameron disaster taught anything, it should be the dangers of pinning so many hopes on a speech.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 25, 2020)

God I hate remainiacs


----------



## two sheds (Jan 25, 2020)

even working class ones?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 25, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> There are a lot of remain weirdos out there though, maybe it's not complete bollocks. Anyway if so that's that fucked



I doubt it’s much about pursuing anything Remain now. That’s stone dead. It’ll be more about seeing off Corbyn and his coterie.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 25, 2020)

two sheds said:


> even working class ones?



I've no issue with people who voted remain, just with the ultras, including the w/c ones


----------



## two sheds (Jan 25, 2020)

fair play

although I can quite understand the position of people who are concerned about the direction Leave is going - looks like closer ties to Trump & US, danger to NHS, danger to environmental and labour and food regulations with pretty far-right tories in charge ...


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2020)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I reckon most of them aren't going near the local parties and the journalists are hearing what they want to tbh


The local parties recognising the names of people who left over Corbyn rejoining is all that's happening I'd imagine.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 25, 2020)

killer b said:


> The local parties recognising the names of people who left over Corbyn rejoining is all that's happening I'd imagine.



wonder if party HQ will be quite so eager this time round to reject anyone who looks as if they might have thought about voting lib dem at any point in the past few years?


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2020)

I think those levers are more or less in the hands of the left now, but I cant see it happening tbh. Also the polling (and my finger in the air - bellwether Labour members ive spoken to are leaning starmer, although with little enthusiasm) suggests starmer has it sewn up anyway so it doesnt really matter.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 25, 2020)

RLB may have had a better chance if Corbyn had stepped down after the EU Elections. His legacy would also have stood a better chance.

A mistake for her subsequently to give Corbyn the 10/10. I’m surprised she fell for giving an answer and the albatross potential of it. I think it sounded like ‘not listening’ to those types now joining.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 25, 2020)

andysays said:


> Lots of people joining the party to vote in the leadership election, but according to the BBC it's likely to benefit Starmer rather than Long Bailey
> 
> Labour Party sees surge in membership amid leadership race
> 
> ...


Basically imaginary I would say.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 25, 2020)

Azrael said:


> What's behind the idea that Starmer's some ultra-Remainer?



Bar the repeated attempts to move labour further along from its 2017 position to PV and then to remain? Bar his emphasis on pushing Labour into the endless parliamentary shenanigans? Bar the position he’s now adopted in respect of trading arrangements? Nothing.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 25, 2020)

killer b said:


> Imagine joining the labour party to vote for Keir Starmer. Big 'we want to speak to the manager' energy in those pricks.


I joined to vote for starmer, thanks for calling me a prick!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 25, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I joined to vote for starmer, thanks for calling me a prick!



I'm not going to call you a prick but I am judging you


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 25, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Bar the repeated attempts to move labour further along from its 2017 position to PV and then to remain? Bar his emphasis on pushing Labour into the endless parliamentary shenanigans? Bar the position he’s now adopted in respect of trading arrangements? Nothing.



Yeah, he went totally rogue there. The poor old Leader of the Opposition was powerless to restrain the Starmer juggernaut.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 26, 2020)

Right, I'll make a bold prediction: Johnson's government will be worse than Cameron's, and they will rule without reason. The economy will go to shit for the majority, civil rights will take a battering, and laws will apply and be applied in the interests (or further than before) of the rich elite.

They'll ruin the country for most of us who aren't in that elite. Then the iron fist in a velvet glove will come out. This is going to be shit. They'll keep enough of the wealthy middle class on side to keep the shit-show going, (probably tax breaks for middle managers, schmooze those who have public profile and influence, easy enough). Kick down at the unwanted, scapegoating to continue.

So: impoverish the poor, undermine justice for the weak, buy and legislate 'justice' for the rich (make it too expensive), plunder the institutions that ordinary people depend on (have paid for). These are the kind of guys that would steal from their Nan's purse. That's 'my' £20, I 'made' it.

So, don't obey the law. Don't accept their domination. That's the right thing to do.


----------



## oryx (Jan 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not going to call you a prick but I am judging you


I wouldn't call you a prick or judge you (well maybe a leetle bit  ) but I would say that Starmer, if he gets in, is another Kinnock waiting to happen.


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I joined to vote for starmer, thanks for calling me a prick!


Would you like to speak to my manager?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 26, 2020)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Yeah, he went totally rogue there. The poor old Leader of the Opposition was powerless to restrain the Starmer juggernaut.



Good attempt to change the point. But let's deal with that one. It was precisely Corbyn’s attempt to prioritise ‘keeping the party together’ over taking a clear position that was a) the problem and b) gave people like Starmer the room for his manoeuvre.

The tragedy is that Corbyn in 2017 had the support and authority to decide a position and decide to take it to the people. Instead, concerned about internal war, one which Starmer would have been a player, dithering took place allowing others to control the narrative and the approach. 

This ended up with Labour - the wanna be insurgents - up to their neck in parliamentary game playing and adopting a non-position on the most important issue of the GE.

Next.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 26, 2020)

killer b said:


> Would you like to speak to my manager?


I’m in his latest campaign video! Prick was too kind.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 26, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> wonder if party HQ will be quite so eager this time round to reject anyone who looks as if they might have thought about voting lib dem at any point in the past few years?



Lambeth Labour party checked all new members joining because of Corbyn. Trying to stop people being able to vote for Corbyn as leader.

Local news blogger Jason was barred from joining party due to his criticism of the Blairite leadership of Lambeth Council. Basicallly being a good local journalist.

Local leadership of the Lambeth Labour party can get quite nasty and vindicative against anyone who does not tow the Blairite line.

From what I remember I think they got him on alleging he had voted Green at local elections. Which a lot of people I know do. Vote Labour nationally but vote Green in Lambeth local elections as dont like Blairites.









						Labour ‘purge’: South west London Jeremy Corbyn supporter barred from voting in leadership content | SWLondoner
					

A south west London Labour supporter has expressed his disbelief at being barred from voting in the leadership contest, as




					www.swlondoner.co.uk
				




*A south west London Labour supporter has expressed his disbelief at being barred from voting in the leadership contest, as the party aims to unearth ‘fake’ supporters.*


----------



## treelover (Jan 26, 2020)

Corbyn allies ‘line up top jobs before new Labour leader is elected’
					

Party HQ, under its general secretary, Jenny Formby, has rejected criticism for advertising senior posts in emails to staff




					www.theguardian.com
				




Its the Observer, and Toby Helm, but if true damning.


----------



## andysays (Jan 26, 2020)

treelover said:


> Corbyn allies ‘line up top jobs before new Labour leader is elected’
> 
> 
> Party HQ, under its general secretary, Jenny Formby, has rejected criticism for advertising senior posts in emails to staff
> ...


Why is it damning?

If, as the article suggests. the posts of head of press and broadcasting, head of policy development, and deputy regional director in London are all vacant because of departing staff, surely the party needs to begin the recruitment process and get people in those roles ASAP rather than doing nothing until the new leader is appointed in April.

Or are you suggesting they can simply do without a head of press and broadcasting, a head of policy development, and a deputy regional director for the next few months?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I joined to vote for starmer, thanks for calling me a prick!



Jess Philips was your second choice and she is out of the contest. So your banking on Starmer winning I assume.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 26, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Jess Philips was your second choice and she is out of the contest. So your banking on Starmer winning I assume.


Jess Phillips wasn’t my second choice, that is Lisa nandy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m in his latest campaign video! Prick was too kind.



Just out of curiousity, not being snide, how did this happen?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Jess Phillips wasn’t my second choice, that is Lisa nandy.



Your post 189 here on page 7 



> What’s all the hate for jess Phillips? She’s be my second choice.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 26, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Your post 189 here:


Ah that was before i watched the first hustings, where she was awful! (And then quit anyway!)


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Jan 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just out of curiousity, not being snide, how did this happen?


Don’t want to say because I’ll probably be laughed at...


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good attempt to change the point. But let's deal with that one. It was precisely Corbyn’s attempt to prioritise ‘keeping the party together’ over taking a clear position that was a) the problem and b) gave people like Starmer the room for his manoeuvre.
> 
> The tragedy is that Corbyn in 2017 had the support and authority to decide a position and decide to take it to the people. Instead, concerned about internal war, one which Starmer would have been a player, dithering took place allowing others to control the narrative and the approach.
> 
> ...


Yeh I'd have liked to have seen it too, but he was fucked if he did fucked if he didn't. Keeping the 'moderates' out of jobs and we'd have constant media briefings  about Stalinist purges coming up to the election. Have to remember the number of MPs who always wanted rid of him.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Yeh I'd have liked to have seen it too, but he was fucked if he did fucked if he didn't. Keeping the 'moderates' out of jobs and we'd have constant media briefings  about Stalinist purges coming up to the election. Have to remember the number of MPs who always wanted rid of him.



I don’t underestimate the problem of the endless internal psychodrama. I also don’t dismiss the fact that Corbyn’s entire leadership was played out in terms of the battle for control of the party.

But, the more the game was engaged in. The more Corbyn and his followers (who let’s face it we’re obsessive about the game as much as their opponents) allowed the tail to wag the dog on Brexit the more abysmal the public position. And whilst it made it harder for Starmer, Watson etc to play their games and Parliamentary charades it didn’t stop it.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2020)

True enough. I'm still not sure how it would have finished up if Labour had gone all-out Brexit though - someone here suggested something along the lines of "Do Brexit properly" which is the best approach I've heard. 

We'd then still have had 50% of the voters to be divided between Labour and the tories and the other 50% of the voters wanting Remain, though.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> True enough. I'm still not sure how it would have finished up if Labour had gone all-out Brexit though - someone here suggested something along the lines of "Do Brexit properly" which is the best approach I've heard.
> 
> We'd then still have had 50% of the voters to be divided between Labour and the tories and the other 50% of the voters wanting Remain, though.



A full remain position, whilst wrong, would have been much better than the actual position with one important caveat. Like a clear leave policy it would have required proper explanation and a concrete set of commitments about how economic and social conditions would improve under it.

Labour’s/Corbyn’s failure was a timid refusal to take the issue of their position decisively away from Parliament and to politicise a clear strategy, one they then took out into communities, argue for it and win people to it.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2020)

and not promising all sort of stuff members came up with (all good and practical though it was) without properly saying how it would be paid for. 

Even then though, with the amount of monstering Corbyn and Labour got from the media I'm not sure they had a chance either way.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> A full remain position, whilst wrong, would have been much better than the actual position with one important caveat. Like a clear leave policy it would have required proper explanation and a concrete set of commitments about how economic and social conditions would improve under it.



I can understand the reasoning behind a full remain (and reform) position being better - might have stopped that 4% swing to libdems which cost labour in a handful of seats - but wouldn't have made any noticeable difference to overall result anyway and in longer term would have been harder for labour to win back the voters it needs to win back. At least this was they can argue that they didn't seek to ignore the result, once a bit of time passes and once tories back in brexit quagmire that might have a bit of stick


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2020)

I do think Labour's position - renegotiate and then put it to people - was best actual policy rather than just staying in and ignoring the referendum or leave on Johnson's terms as we'll be getting.  People were so fucked off with the whole thing so that didn't work either. 

On reflection voting for May's proposal would have been best. Still a shit deal but we wouldn't be in for 5 years of Johnson and his mates. The 2017 election clearly went to the heads.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> We'd then still have had 50% of the voters to be divided between Labour and the tories and the other 50% of the voters wanting Remain, though.



but that was the choice in 2017, when tories and labour both campaigned on respecting the referendum result (but differences in how they would go about it) and got over 80% of the votes between them, and the lib dems and greens who were taking the second referendum line - and it didn't do them a lot of good...


----------



## Big Bertha (Jan 26, 2020)

treelover said:


> Corbyn allies ‘line up top jobs before new Labour leader is elected’
> 
> 
> Party HQ, under its general secretary, Jenny Formby, has rejected criticism for advertising senior posts in emails to staff
> ...


He’s trying to fuck the party for another 5 years


----------



## kebabking (Jan 26, 2020)

Its worth noting that the Tories managed to - overwhelmingly - retain their remainer vote at both the 2017 and 2019 GE's. Obviously their split went the other way, but they seemed quite able to retain a huge slice of those who, if the electorate truly were defined solely by leave/remain, shouldn't have voted for them.

They, it seems to me, successfully used two messages to bridge the gap: _we are where we are, and public faith in democracy is more important than membership of this or that international organisation, _and _I know you're unhappy with brexit, but a Tory government will give you things you want, and stop labour/Corbyn giving you lots of what you don't want. _

Corbyn, to my mind, simply refused to run the risk of telling his supporters what they didn't want to hear - shades perhaps of his failures over anti-Semitism: too concerned with not alienating fellow travellers and not concerned enough with what the bubble was starting to look like from the outside - too much 'ive got the biggest ship', and not enough 'this is where my ship is going'...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I can understand the reasoning behind a full remain (and reform) position being better - might have stopped that 4% swing to libdems which cost labour in a handful of seats - but wouldn't have made any noticeable difference to overall result anyway and in longer term would have been harder for labour to win back the voters it needs to win back. At least this was they can argue that they didn't seek to ignore the result, once a bit of time passes and once tories back in brexit quagmire that might have a bit of stick



You’ve overlooked two important points here - the first is about competence and capability. A clear policy, properly formulated, offers credibility at least. Second, such a policy would then need to be explained. The 500,000 members could have been put to use here, public meetings called, demands placed on a split Tory party. I’d argue that if this had happened seats in Labour areas would have been retained.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> fair play
> 
> although I can quite understand the position of people who are concerned about the direction Leave is going - looks like closer ties to Trump & US, danger to NHS, danger to environmental and labour and food regulations with pretty far-right tories in charge ...



Not like the EU was protecting the NHS though is it? 

And if you care about the environment and you don't want to eat chlorinated chicken, just become a vegetarian and kill two birds with one stone. Or, well, no birds.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2020)

I read somewhere that new EU rules coming in this year mean that even more public contracts will be put out to tender so yes.

Still not as bad as what we're going to be getting though. Private Eye had a piece this issue that British farmers will likely be competing against cheap imports from the US, Brazil and the like with fewer environmental and welfare regulations. Any takers on whether country of origin won't be labelled in case people unfairly discriminate against American suppliers by deciding not to buy them. So not just chickens.


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not like the EU was protecting the NHS though is it?



FOM was helping to staff it


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2020)

Looking good for J£$$ica...


----------



## treelover (Jan 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Don’t want to say because I’ll probably be laughed at...



Why should you be, you are entitled to your opinion, I am stil open minded who to vote for, don't think it will be RLB or Burgon though.


----------



## treelover (Jan 26, 2020)

Big Bertha said:


> He’s trying to fuck the party for another 5 years



I would argue Helm, Cohen and co, helped push a fair few labour voters to the Lib dems, greens, etc.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 26, 2020)

treelover said:


> Corbyn allies ‘line up top jobs before new Labour leader is elected’
> 
> 
> Party HQ, under its general secretary, Jenny Formby, has rejected criticism for advertising senior posts in emails to staff
> ...


I saw this earlier today and it seems to be entirely the Labour right briefing against their political opponents, and the Guardian breathlessly promoting it because of course they would. There's absolutely no indication that this is not an entirely normal procedure and has never been something tied to the leadership.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 26, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I saw this earlier today and it seems to be entirely the Labour right briefing against their political opponents, and the Guardian breathlessly promoting it because of course they would.


The Observer - a shade more likely to


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I saw this earlier today and it seems to be entirely the Labour right briefing against their political opponents, and the Guardian breathlessly promoting it because of course they would. There's absolutely no indication that this is not an entirely normal procedure and has never been something tied to the leadership.



The prospect of people being allocated jobs based on their expertise, experience and talents doesn't seem to have entered anyone's heads. Like everything else it must all come down to factional allegiance.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2020)

I like the way all the headlines about the contenders have a backhanded swipe at Labour if that particular one doesn't get elected.

*  Why should Keir Starmer step aside? His rivals have few feminist credentials*
Catherine Bennett

There was another along the lines of "Starmer would unite Labour - if they'd let him"

 i.e. if those lefties would let the 'moderates' take charge again


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 26, 2020)

ska invita said:


> The Observer - a shade more likely to


The function of the Observer brand seems to be to let the Guardian publish even worse stuff on a Sunday and then say "oh actually it wasn't us it was the Observer". Implausible deniability.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> There was another along the lines of "Starmer would unite Labour - if they'd let him"



Superb. Unity or death. Centrist stalinism. Although tbh I'm not sure Starmer's the right man to lead a cult of personality, it'd be like a snake leading a cult of legs.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 26, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Superb. Unity or death. Centrist stalinism. Although tbh I'm not sure Starmer's the right man to lead a cult of personality, it'd be like a snake leading a cult of legs.



along the same lines 









						Keir Starmer’s soft-left approach is the unifying force that Labour needs | Zoe Williams
					

With other party leadership candidates underscoring division, Starmer is drawing in factions from the hard left and the centre, says Guardian columnist Zoe Williams




					www.theguardian.com
				




I'm surprised they're not running articles about how the hard left approach could unify labour too


----------



## Marty1 (Jan 26, 2020)

RLB on the attack.


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> RLB on the attack.
> 
> View attachment 196768



She's obviously not going to try and bring the party together


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> RLB on the attack.
> 
> View attachment 196768


it's not RLB, it's some bloke running a fan account.


----------



## andysays (Jan 26, 2020)

belboid said:


> it's not RLB, it's some bloke running a fan account.


With fans like this...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 26, 2020)

You have to wonder if that’s a genuine account or one designed to look supportive whilst damaging RLB.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 26, 2020)

Supine said:


> She's obviously not going to try and bring the party together


Christ I know you're a dense Lib Dem but even for you this is stupid.


----------



## Supine (Jan 26, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ I know you're a dense Lib Dem but even for you this is stupid.



Fuck off


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You have to wonder if that’s a genuine account or one designed to look supportive whilst damaging RLB.


The cranks dont need any assistance tbf


----------



## Azrael (Jan 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Bar the repeated attempts to move labour further along from its 2017 position to PV and then to remain? Bar his emphasis on pushing Labour into the endless parliamentary shenanigans? Bar the position he’s now adopted in respect of trading arrangements? Nothing.


Which position's that? If it's membership of the E.E.A. (has he advocated that?), that's a position routinely held by leading Brexiteers (including, if his bigging up of Norway and Switzerland's anything to go by, Farage) before the 2016 vote. After all, Eurosceptism was for years defined by leaving the political project while maintaining close economic ties.

As for moving Labour towards a 2nd referendum, yes, in 2018, when it was politically advantageous to do so. Since its membership's overwhelmingly pro-E.U., makes sense to set himself up as their champion. He was before that happy to nod along to a much harder Brexit than any serious leaver once advocated, and as noted, has never offered a proper defence of the E.E.A., instead squandering political capital on the peripheral issue of a customs union.

He's a political pragmatist who's instinctively pro-E.U., but ultimately happy to abandon the bloc if it suits.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> God I hate remainiacs


That's your affair, but given the majority opinion of Labour members, you must see why any leadership candidate's walking a fine line.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 26, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The function of the Observer brand seems to be to let the Guardian publish even worse stuff on a Sunday and then say "oh actually it wasn't us it was the Observer". Implausible deniability.


This is back in blair Iraq war days but I did hear that there was genuine difference between the two papers. I can't recall the details now. Observer iirc published all kinds of wmd lies, my memory is shit, I also remember some straight from the mouth of mi6 content. Vaguely recall some grievance between the two papers at that time, political but also financial.
Apologies for the shit post, but I think there might be more complex a picture than what you say.
Though boil it all down and who cares what the difference is


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2020)

killer b said:


> The cranks dont need any assistance tbf



 they could do with a hug though


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2020)

Azrael said:


> As for moving Labour towards a 2nd referendum, yes, in 2018, when it was politically advantageous to do so
> ....
> He's a political pragmatist who's instinctively pro-E.U., but ultimately happy to abandon the bloc if it suits.


Politically advantageous to lose 60 seat, right.
He publicly expressed his support for remaining in the EU in any 2nd referendum. 

This is as divorced from reality as your contention that the S&D parliamentary group is social democratic.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2020)

Starmer the candidate that appeals to yellow tories and liberal capitalists.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 27, 2020)

Whoever has the bravery to help deliver a united Ireland, would be first choice. Doubt any of them truly give a fuck, mind.


----------



## andysays (Jan 27, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Whoever has the bravery to help deliver a united Ireland, would be first choice. Doubt any of them truly give a fuck, mind.


What the Labour leadership contest REALLY needs to liven it up is for the question of a united Ireland to be introduced at the behest of a random posting from Japan...


----------



## kebabking (Jan 27, 2020)

andysays said:


> What the Labour leadership contest REALLY needs to liven it up is for the question of a united Ireland to be introduced at the behest of a random posting from Japan...



I fear you massively underestimate the importance, both in electorate terms and in its history of the Labour movement, of the Irish-Japanese caucus - 50 or 60 seats on the heartlands swing on this critical demographic....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2020)

There is a lot to digest here from Harris.

4 things stood out for me:

1. The voting figures among the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled working class. People can trot out their usual moan about the social classifications used by academia but there is no hiding from the scale of the problem.
2. Finally, someone from the Guardian admits that the population in the deindustrialised areas is not just angry white gammon ex-miners and that this is a grotesque and offensive caricature designed to other these communities and kept stripped of agency.
3.  He is absolutely right that the leadership contest is a dead zone. Zombie pols barfing out the line to take. No ideas. No genuine debate. No sense of the need to think and inspire and engage. It's desperate stuff.
4. I agree with Harris up to a point about the popular experience of much of the state. But the more important point is that the state can't simply exist and operate effectively without proper funding and critically without strong vibrant and powerful non-state institutions alongside it, rubbing against it, using it, moving it and making it work properly _for people_.  I'd love to be wrong but I can't remember one proposal from any candidate that begins to engage with this - despite them all claiming to be the missing link between the party and the working class. 

The skewering of Labour and Momentum's top down stalinism is both amusing and enjoyable. However, I note the Blairite Harris doesn't extend the critique to his own bunch of top down power freaks.









						Labour is stuck in the last century. Its adversaries have seized the future | John Harris
					

The party needs its own national story: a shift in consciousness that is 40 years overdue, says Guardian columnist John Harris




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 2. Finally, someone from the Guardian admits that the population in the deindustrialised areas is not just angry white gammon ex-miners and that this is a grotesque and offensive caricature designed to other these communities and kept stripped of agency.


hasn't this been more or less the thrust of Harris' columns in the graun for at least the past five years?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> There is a lot to digest here from Harris.
> 
> 4 things stood out for me:
> 
> ...


Harris' point 4. about the working class lived experience of the state seems to me the one that the candidates are/feel unable to contemplate:


The neoliberal conundrum that the left party of capital has failed to address.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2020)

killer b said:


> hasn't this been more or less the thrust of Harris' columns in the graun for at least the past five years?



Has it? The ones I've read seemed to me to consist of reportage about why these areas voted Brexit rather than a proper exploration of a deeper political alienation


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> The neoliberal conundrum that the left party of capital has failed to address.



Quite. And the growing consensus among the leadership hopefuls is that there is no need to do so. Wait for Corbyn to shuffle off, keep the head down till this Brexit thing dies down and maybe thin out the spending plan - then it'll all be okay again.

Delusional.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 27, 2020)

andysays said:


> What the Labour leadership contest REALLY needs to liven it up is for the question of a united Ireland to be introduced at the behest of a random posting from Japan...



Don't see why not. You've got your Brexit and wish you all well with that. Be nice if the love was spread to Ireland and the exit from the UK  Shouldn't really make much difference where the sentiment comes from...


----------



## teqniq (Jan 27, 2020)

Interesting:


----------



## treelover (Jan 27, 2020)

Grassroots Revival – my campaigning action plan for Labour – LabourList
					

As a doctor, I know that before a patient can be diagnosed, it is vital to first take a detailed history and examine them thoroughly.…




					labourlist.org
				





I like Rosina's Allin Khan's ideas here


----------



## LDC (Jan 27, 2020)

treelover said:


> Grassroots Revival – my campaigning action plan for Labour – LabourList
> 
> 
> As a doctor, I know that before a patient can be diagnosed, it is vital to first take a detailed history and examine them thoroughly.…
> ...



Have you seen her speak at any of the hustings? She can't go a sentence without mentioning being poor, cold, and hungry as a kid to a single parent.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 27, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Have you seen her speak at any of the hustings? She can't go a sentence without mentioning being poor, cold, and hungry as a kid to a single parent.



I didn’t get beyond the clunking Dr says Labour on life support analogy. Talk about talking the team up.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2020)

teqniq said:


> Interesting:



In what way?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 27, 2020)

In that it's really shitty but unsurpising that the resignees deleted all the shared stuff off the hard drive but they still manged to put something together in time.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 27, 2020)

She should have named and shamed the traitors. Can’t abide that. Disagree, stick your notice in whatever, but don’t shaft your colleagues.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2020)

teqniq said:


> In that it's really shitty but unsurpising that the resignees deleted all the shared stuff off the hard drive but they still manged to put something together in time.



I had numerous problems with it. Firstly, the idea that Burgon, Rayner, RLB and McDonnell were sat together eating pizza as they pored over the detail of a devastating attack on the WC that only RLB could head off by sparkling in a commons sub-committee  is all a bit _west wing. _

Also, where were the army of advisers and hangers on who normally do the grunt work?

Finally, doesn't RLB own a memory stick given the earth shattering importance of the (unexplained) issue?

But my main problem is that for those who think RLB is largely charisma free, a back room policy functionary type rather than a leader - and that there are homilies where a core narrative that inspires should be - it sort of confirms the analysis.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> She should have named and shamed the traitors. Can’t abide that. Disagree, stick your notice in whatever, but don’t shaft your colleagues.



Given the period is obvious it doesn't require Inspector Morse to work it out, no?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given the period is obvious it doesn't require Inspector Morse to work it out, no?



I’m not saying it does. Just may be good to remind us.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 27, 2020)

belboid said:


> it's not RLB, it's some bloke running a fan account.


Apart from calling her stance on immigration “dodgy” the rest is fair comment


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 27, 2020)

ska invita said:


> This is back in blair Iraq war days but I did hear that there was genuine difference between the two papers. I can't recall the details now. Observer iirc published all kinds of wmd lies, my memory is shit, I also remember some straight from the mouth of mi6 content. Vaguely recall some grievance between the two papers at that time, political but also financial.
> Apologies for the shit post, but I think there might be more complex a picture than what you say.
> Though boil it all down and who cares what the difference is


As a Sunday paper the Observer is always going to be more reliant on spooks because of the print lead-in times to get exclusives: they cannot compete with dailies for immediacy.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 27, 2020)

ska invita said:


> This is back in blair Iraq war days but I did hear that there was genuine difference between the two papers. I can't recall the details now. Observer iirc published all kinds of wmd lies, my memory is shit, I also remember some straight from the mouth of mi6 content. Vaguely recall some grievance between the two papers at that time, political but also financial.
> Apologies for the shit post, but I think there might be more complex a picture than what you say.
> Though boil it all down and who cares what the difference is


The week before the war started, the Observer published as fact the already debunked claim that agents of Saddam had met with Al-Qaida members in Prague.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Politically advantageous to lose 60 seat, right.
> He publicly expressed his support for remaining in the EU in any 2nd referendum.
> 
> This is as divorced from reality as your contention that the S&D parliamentary group is social democratic.


Advantageous within Labour itself, not necessarily in a general election (which I discussed in the post mortem thread). Given the numbers of pro-2nd referendum motions passed by constituency meetings in 2018, there was clearly an internal advantage to setting himself up as their champion. Even here, as noted, he was cautious.

As for PLP groupings, I've no strong feelings either way.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 27, 2020)

Larry O'Hara said:


> As a Sunday paper the Observer is always going to be more reliant on spooks because of the print lead-in times to get exclusives: they cannot compete with dailies for immediacy.



That *definitely* rings bells for me (I've read both papers for years   )


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Quite. And the growing consensus among the leadership hopefuls is that there is no need to do so. Wait for Corbyn to shuffle off, keep the head down till this Brexit thing dies down and maybe thin out the spending plan - then it'll all be okay again.
> 
> Delusional.



More like wait for Brexit to ruin everything, then win by default on a platform of nothing.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> More like wait for Brexit to ruin everything, then win by default on a platform of nothing.



can you give some examples of what you fear will be ‘ruined’?


----------



## cantsin (Jan 28, 2020)

andysays said:


> With fans like this...



huh ? what was so divisive / otherwise about that tweet ?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m not saying it does. Just may be good to remind us.



Well RLB and her campaign have certainly made us all see the light about Rob Marris.

I note momentum have ‘gone big’ on this tale.

Fucking idiots


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Rob Marris.



So obscure that I had to look the name up


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 28, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> So obscure that I had to look the name up



Indeed. But what purpose does this serve? Reopening sectarian/factional battles is just a really bad look. I’m starting to really dislike RLB - either be yourself and dispense with this shit or own it etc


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Indeed. But what purpose does this serve? Reopening sectarian/factional battles is just a really bad look. I’m starting to really dislike RLB - either be yourself and dispense with this shit or own it etc



Completely agree -- she comes over as the most divisive candidate, and that's saying a lot.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Indeed. But what purpose does this serve? Reopening sectarian/factional battles is just a really bad look. I’m starting to really dislike RLB - either be yourself and dispense with this shit or own it etc



Well you are probably right, but are you ready to move on if Labour ends up with Starmer?


----------



## Humberto (Jan 29, 2020)

If Starmer 'wins' they've no chance. The scales are fixed. That's not his fault, but you've got to be realistic. He is a shit candidate with nothing to offer.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 29, 2020)

I'm even more depressed about it than that, because I don't think Starmer's _completely_ shit (note emphasis!)

I think he could well contrive a half-way competent job at moving the LP towards somewhere half-way efficient, half-way competent**, with a half-reasonable set of soft-left policies, which are half-way but not completely Blairite, and as such winning a half-decent number of seats -- and those mostly but not completely in the wrong areas  

**And there's a lot to be said for that in pure operational and Seamus Milne-free terms 

Compared to that, Nandy's drawbacks look a fair bit more acceptable IMO ...


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm even more depressed about it than that, because I don't think Starmer's _completely_ shit (note emphasis!)
> 
> I think he could well contrive a half-way competent job at moving the LP towards somewhere half-way efficient, half-way competent**, with a half-reasonable set of soft-left policies, which are half-way but not completely Blairite, and as such winning a half-decent number of seats -- and those mostly but not completely in the wrong areas
> 
> ...



Maybe, but it’s debatable that those small town votes lost to the Tories are crying out for something demonstrably very left wing any more than they are desperate for more Blair if neither vary from a top down model.

I don’t suspect there is a great deal of difference across the candidates politics. All three would retain fair chunks of Labour’s programme while endeavouring not to scare the horses. All will get called too barmy and too much the same old Lib Elite, probably on the same day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Maybe, but it’s debatable that those small town votes lost to the Tories are crying out for something demonstrably very left wing any more than they are desperate for more Blair if neither vary from a top down model.
> 
> I don’t suspect there is a great deal of difference across the candidates politics. All three would retain fair chunks of Labour’s programme while endeavouring not to scare the horses. All will get called too barmy and too much the same old Lib Elite, probably on the same day.


they want eric blair

although i suspect he'd be more the road to wigan's peer than the road to wigan pier


----------



## Humberto (Jan 29, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm even more depressed about it than that, because I don't think Starmer's _completely_ shit (note emphasis!)
> 
> I think he could well contrive a half-way competent job at moving the LP towards somewhere half-way efficient, half-way competent**, with a half-reasonable set of soft-left policies, which are half-way but not completely Blairite, and as such winning a half-decent number of seats -- and those mostly but not completely in the wrong areas
> 
> ...



It seems like something the Lib Dems would have done five years ago.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 29, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm even more depressed about it than that, because I don't think Starmer's _completely_ shit (note emphasis!)
> 
> I think he could well contrive a half-way competent job at moving the LP towards somewhere half-way efficient, half-way competent**, with a half-reasonable set of soft-left policies, which are half-way but not completely Blairite, and as such winning a half-decent number of seats -- and those mostly but not completely in the wrong areas
> 
> ...



This idea that a half-reasonable soft left platform would engage the public without drawing the ire of the tory press is undermined by the experience of Ed Miliband, who failed to rebuild any kind of Labour base with his wishy-washy shite but got monstered by the media anyway. The only thing which would interest me is someone saying fuck the press, fuck the chattering classes, we're going to talk directly to working people and actually support them, which is the right thing to do whether it gets us elected or not. None of the candidates are even close to that, and even if they were the current PLP wouldn't stand for it. 

A lot of Corbyn's missteps I can let him off for, on the grounds that he didn't have many better options. But failing to plan for his probable downfall by identifying a credible successor, that just smacks of arrogance. Long-Bailey is a joke.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2020)

The problem is that Long Bailey_ is_ the most credible successor. There's no-one else in the frame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2020)

tbh the bigger question is who will be the leader after next as i don't suppose the next one's going to win an election: they'll be a kinnock for our time


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 29, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> This idea that a half-reasonable soft left platform would engage the public without drawing the ire of the tory press is undermined by the experience of Ed Miliband, who failed to rebuild any kind of Labour base with his wishy-washy shite but got monstered by the media anyway. The only thing which would interest me is someone saying fuck the press, fuck the chattering classes, we're going to talk directly to working people and actually support them, which is the right thing to do whether it gets us elected or not. None of the candidates are even close to that, and even if they were the current PLP wouldn't stand for it.
> 
> Long-Bailey is a joke.



Agree on both points.

Given 4 certainties: that whoever they elect will be attacked unless, like Blair, they clearly signal a full accommodation with the demands of capital and its intellectual outriders. That membership will remain over 500,000 and will be full of people who a) want to do something real and meaningful and b) want an end to Stalinist top downing. Third, that social media and _active and sustained campaigning in communities will _count in ordinary people’s minds as much if not more than what the cobweb media think. Lived fucking experience. And finally any strategy that takes as it’s starting point that all is well, we just need to get rid of Corbyn and wait for Brexit to calm down, is doomed to disaster. On this basis what you suggest is exactly what I want to hear from a candidate.  

Talking of doomed for disaster- as for RLB her campaign, her appeal, her aura is just....fucking depressingly bad.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 29, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agree on both points.
> 
> Given 4 certainties: that whoever they elect will be attacked unless, like Blair, they clearly signal a full accommodation with the demands of capital and its intellectual outriders. That membership will remain over 500,000 and will be full of people who a) want to do something real and meaningful and b) want an end to Stalinist top downing. Third, that social media and _active and sustained campaigning in communities will _count in ordinary people’s minds as much if not more than what the cobweb media think. Lived fucking experience. And finally any strategy that takes as it’s starting point that all is well, we just need to get rid of Corbyn and wait for Brexit to calm down, is doomed to disaster. On this basis what you suggest is exactly what I want to hear from a candidate.
> 
> Talking of doomed for disaster- as for RLB her campaign, her appeal, her aura is just....fucking depressingly bad.



I'd disagree about social media. The way it's all set up, particularly facebook, makes it difficult to get any traction outside the bubble of people who already support you. The tories do fine because they pay for advertising and have established corporate media outlets working for them. Independent, non-profit media has its influence 'capped' by Zuckerberg, and particularly under Corbyn that's where most of the Labour messaging was. Relying on facebook is as doomed as hoping for a fair shake from the BBC or the telegraph IMO.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> they want eric blair
> 
> although i suspect he'd be more the road to wigan's peer than the road to wigan pier



Very good. Enlivening a contest that has thus far been a homage to catatonia.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> This idea that a half-reasonable soft left platform would engage the public without drawing the ire of the tory press is undermined by the experience of Ed Miliband, who failed to rebuild any kind of Labour base with his wishy-washy shite but got monstered by the media anyway. The only thing which would interest me is someone saying fuck the press, fuck the chattering classes, we're going to talk directly to working people and actually support them, which is the right thing to do whether it gets us elected or not. None of the candidates are even close to that, and even if they were the current PLP wouldn't stand for it.
> 
> A lot of Corbyn's missteps I can let him off for, on the grounds that he didn't have many better options. But failing to plan for his probable downfall by identifying a credible successor, that just smacks of arrogance. Long-Bailey is a joke.



I agree that soft Labour isn’t going to have much appeal and neither is Blairism. Things have moved on. The print media isn’t going to back that form of neoliberalism any more. It has a new model with a more nationalist, parochial interest that sells itself as the UK gone truly global. Any reheated Blairism is just the old discredited liberal elite when another liberal elite is in ascendency.

It’s tempting to give a resounding ‘fuck off’ to everything, but the Labour leader is to audition to run the bourgeois state, not destroy it (other than through ineptitude, hooray!). It’s simply implausible to believe that voters lost to the _Tories_ (not lost to the Greens or the Looneys) don’t care about competence or are ready to overthrow capitalism. On the contrary, many have a capitalist imagination as it fits with the self-reliance imposed upon them by industrial decay.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> The problem is that Long Bailey_ is_ the most credible successor. There's no-one else in the frame.



Perhaps he was counting on Pidcock.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> There's no-one else in the frame.



I think some over-zealous cropping may have occurred.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2020)

Perhaps, and perhaps that they might have a couple more years to get someone into position, or for Long Bailey to develop more political nous.

They may be nominally in charge of the party, but the Labour left in parliament remains a tiny group, and Long Bailey is their biggest hitter outside the outgoing leadership.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 29, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm even more depressed about it than that, because I don't think Starmer's _completely_ shit (note emphasis!)
> 
> I think he could well contrive a half-way competent job at moving the LP towards somewhere half-way efficient, half-way competent**, with a half-reasonable set of soft-left policies, which are half-way but not completely Blairite, and as such winning a half-decent number of seats -- and those mostly but not completely in the wrong areas
> 
> ...


Half-way Blairite? A turd is still a turd...and anyway as I have stated earlier on this thread I dont buy the idea that Starmer is even competent.

you have got to distinguish between

a) tactics to win an election, at which the Tories were superb and Labour crap. Something I will elaborate on elsewhere.

b) policies to resolve serious issues. On this the Tories kicked both HS2 and Huawei into the medium-length grass. Today shows another example: nationalising Northern Rail, delayed till now to avoid giving Labour policy credence. Here, the innovative ideas fostered by McDonnell on public ownership and even the Green New Deal with its limitations are genuinely interesting. Electing scum like Starmer will end all that.

in which case I’m with RLB, whatever her limitations. Nandy, as has been pointed out, is resolutely anti-Leftist.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 29, 2020)

Going on what someone else was saying about the lack of talent at the top of the labour party, this is a member of the shadow cabinet and candidate for deputy leader:


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 29, 2020)

Could have been worse, could have been a bit of Yaz or Bonny Tyler something. 2unlimited. Brothers and sisters, there are no limits. No no no. You reach for the sky. Comrades, there are no valleys too low or mountains too high


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Going on what someone else was saying about the lack of talent at the top of the labour party, this is a member of the shadow cabinet and candidate for deputy leader:




You laugh, but both Olly Murs and Meghan Trainor 'turned'.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2020)

Not my kind of thing, but the actual prime minister is constantly reciting poetry, sometimes in latin. Don't think this is really much different.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> Not my kind of thing, but the actual prime minister is constantly reciting poetry, sometimes in latin. Don't think this is really much different.



I mean, doing poetry in latin is the mark of a knob but something inside so strong, it's pretty fucking bad


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2020)

I didn't notice too many people complaining when her boss spent the last 4 years banging out The Masque of Anarchy at speeches either.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2020)

I mean, it's all a bit cringe, but who's she making that speech to? Not to twitter, to a room of greyhair Labour activists who all own Labi Sifre's greatest hits and campaigned against apartheid. And they seem to be loving it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I mean, doing poetry in latin is the mark of a knob but something inside so strong, it's pretty fucking bad



Yes, Labour’s battles to stop being crap are hardly analogous to the battle against apartheid.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 30, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I mean, doing poetry in latin is the mark of a knob but something inside so strong, it's pretty fucking bad



She should have done Easterhouse’s ‘Whistling in the Dark’.  Apt for the morons lapping it up.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, Labour’s battles to stop being crap are hardly analogous to the battle against apartheid.


So what? The 2017 general election wasn't analogous with the Peterloo massacre, no-one complained about Corbyn wheeling out Shelley at every opportunity - Politicians constantly quote poems, songs, other politicians, etc during stump speeches and while it's often a bit cringe it's pretty unremarkable. 

If it'd been a white middle aged male politician quoting Byron, or Shakespeare, or the fucking Smiths, no-one would have given a fuck, much less posted a video of it on twitter for clicks from racists, or posted it here as evidence of a lack of talent in Labour's front bench.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 30, 2020)

Talking of ridiculous song outbursts:









						MEPs sing Auld Lang Syne after approving Brexit deal – video
					

MEPs broke into song after voting to approve the withdrawal agreement for Britain's exit from the EU




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> So what? The 2017 general election wasn't analogous with the Peterloo massacre, no-one complained about Corbyn wheeling out Shelley at every opportunity - Politicians constantly quote poems, songs, other politicians, etc during stump speeches and while it's often a bit cringe it's pretty unremarkable.
> 
> If it'd been a white middle aged male politician quoting Byron, or Shakespeare, or the fucking Smiths, no-one would have given a fuck, much less posted a video of it on twitter for clicks from racists, or posted it here as evidence of a lack of talent in Labour's front bench.



You are being way too touchy. Her singing had more than a touch of Alan Partridge. You seem to think you have licence to consider these things a bit ‘cringe’ but if anyone else does its dodgy.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2020)

I dunno man. I don't particularly rate Dawn Butler, but looking as all the fucks replying to that thread I know who's side I'd rather be on.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2020)

killer b said:


> I dunno man. I don't particularly rate Dawn Butler, but looking as all the fucks replying to that thread I know who's side I'd rather be on.



I haven’t looked, but I can imagine and that’s a reasonable point you make.

There’s not a great deal we can do about that and on the whole I’d agree that it’s best not to hold people up for humiliation, especially if in the wider scheme of things you wish to be on the same side.

But you can’t unsee it.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 30, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Talking of ridiculous song outbursts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At least they sung it correctly as "for auld lang syne" rather than the nonsensical "for the sake of auld lang syne" abomination


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2020)




----------



## Gramsci (Jan 31, 2020)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 197132



Just checked and this area was Leave. I dont understand how Remainer like Starmer gets nomination.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Talking of ridiculous song outbursts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I thought was ridiculous was seeing Farage ( with Ann Widdicombe next to him) and the rest of the Brexit MEPs waving the union jack after Brexit deal was approved. Im tired of having to explain that not all British people are like this to my non British friends/ workmates here. They are imo an embarrassment to this country.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Just checked and this area was Leave. I dont understand how Remainer like Starmer gets nomination.


Why not? You've said before that in your own constituency the CLP is not representative of the electorate.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2020)

Not sure how meaningful it is but thought this was a bit of fun anyway


----------



## kabbes (Jan 31, 2020)

Edit: never mind.  I see the second one is RLB supporters and the third is Starmer.  It was hard to spot!

Lol at Starmer rating Brown as the best ever leader.  Real finger on the pulse stuff, that.  If they were Tory, they’d be voting for Michael Howard.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jan 31, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Am I missing something?  Aren’t those three lists all measuring the same thing with different results?  Or is that the point?


It’s separated out by leadership candidate.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Not sure how meaningful it is but thought this was a bit of fun anyway
> View attachment 197145
> View attachment 197146
> View attachment 197147



Some serious tunnel vision on either side. And they both like Miliband second best.

Labour members appear to have short memories for either Illegal wars or getting soundly beaten. But the question is a bit like asking what your favourite disease is.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Not sure how meaningful it is but thought this was a bit of fun anyway
> 
> 
> View attachment 197147



Christ imagine being someone who thinks Gordon Brown was the best Labour leader ever.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jan 31, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Christ imagine being someone who thinks Gordon Brown was the best Labour leader ever.


Imagine thinking Corbyn was!!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Christ imagine being someone who thinks Gordon Brown was the best Labour leader ever.



Imagine being someone who thinks it was Corbyn.

Atlee: NHS, Housing, Education, nationalisation/public ownership programme, won two elections
Wilson: nationalisation, health and safety act, equal pay act, mass expansion of education including the Open University, race discrimination act, decriminalised homosexuality, abortion act, won 4 elections 
Corbyn: err Glastonbury, secured worst performance since 1935 and lost seats which have never been lost in working class areas.

How fucking dense are Labour Party members??


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

It's just the same effect that saw Mrs Browns Boys and Men Behaving Badly voted the best comedies ever in polls when they were the most recent big comedy shows. It doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's just the same effect that saw Mrs Browns Boys and Men Behaving Badly voted the best comedies ever in polls when they were the most recent big comedy shows. It doesn't mean anything.



I take that to mean people vote for the new or the latest? 

I would have hoped members of a political party would have a slightly longer and deeper historical view than those asked what they like on the tele. But clearly not.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's just the same effect that saw Mrs Browns Boys and Men Behaving Badly voted the best comedies ever in polls when they were the most recent big comedy shows. It doesn't mean anything.


Mrs Brown Boys just won National Television Awards  Best Comedy . I had no idea it was still going


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I would have hoped members of a political party would have a slightly longer and deeper historical view than those asked what they like on the tele. But clearly not.


They do: way less that 75% of the general public would have any idea about Atlee's record for eg, and I imagine the number of people who've even heard of Lansbury would be well under 1%


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> They do: way less that 75% of the general public would have any idea about Atlee's record for eg, and I imagine the number of people who've even heard of Lansbury would be well under 1%



They might have heard of Atlee but they clearly don't understand what his Government achieved. I'm serious here - how on earth doesn't he stroll it? ''On behalf of the people', creation of the NHS etc etc etc 

To take another example Wilson achieved what Corbyn singularly failed to do - he popularised the idea of public ownership and planning. He made it hegemonic. 

I genuinely don't understand how you can pay to be a member of a party and not know this sort of basic stuff.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Those numbers don't really show the full picture tbh: Look at the chart here: Atlee is actually well in the lead if you exclude the don't knows. 



And as I say: even these numbers demonstrate way, way more knowledge about politicians of the past than the general public.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I genuinely don't understand how you can pay to be a member of a party and not know this sort of basic stuff.


My recollections of CLP meetings was that many members did not know a great deal of basic stuff about pretty much anything.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Imagine being someone who thinks it was Corbyn.
> 
> Atlee: NHS, Housing, Education, nationalisation/public ownership programme, won two elections
> Wilson: nationalisation, health and safety act, equal pay act, mass expansion of education including the Open University, race discrimination act, decriminalised homosexuality, abortion act, won 4 elections
> Corbyn: err Glastonbury, secured worst performance since 1935 and lost seats which have never been lost in working class areas.



Always vital to have at the forefront of our minds that the Labour’s poor election performance was 100% the fault of the cunts who were vile and/or stupid enough to vote for the Boris regime. We must never forget nor forgive their appalling conduct.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 31, 2020)

There is more racism and xenophobia in this country than i think people are willing to admit. Not necessarily the full-on shouting and screaming with possible violent behaviour kind though that has certainly been empowered by recent events such as the election, but more of a behind twitched net curtains kind. I read a thread on Twitter not long after the election to which a Labour activist in the Wigan area contributed and according to her as she went from doorstep to doorstep the constant refrain was immigration.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Always vital to have at the forefront of our minds that the Labour’s poor election performance was 100% the fault of the cunts who were vile and/or stupid enough to vote for the Boris regime. We must never forget nor forgive their appalling conduct.



The abject failure of my pop career is entirely the fault of the cunts who didn't buy my records, and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that my singing sounds like a vat of skinned cats being boiled alive.

Have you thought about a career in politics - I hear the LibDems, who I think do a similar line in 'you're all think cunts!' campaigning/abuse to you - have a number of vacancies....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> The abject failure of my pop career is entirely the fault of the cunts who didn't buy my records, and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that my singing sounds like a vat of skinned cats being boiled alive.



have you heard of mumble rap? It’s big these days and kids love it. Most of it is worse than cat screaming. Consumers of music have shit taste as do voters. The world is shit and people are awful. You’re awful too, I’ve thought you’re a cunt and prick for years now.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> ...You’re awful too, I’ve thought you’re a cunt and prick for years now.



Look at the sky. Then imagine something  fifty times bigger than all the sky you can see - that's about 1/1000ths of the indifference I feel.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2020)

Mrs Brown’s Boys is a comedy?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Mrs Brown’s Boys is a comedy?



Yup. You laugh at people who enjoy it. Hence it's a comedy.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Look at the sky. Then imagine something  fifty times bigger than all the sky you can see - that's about 1/1000ths of the indifference I feel.



And yet you weren't indifferent enough to not bother typing that. Sad.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

fwiw I've never seen Mrs Browns Boys, and have no idea how funny it is (or otherwise)


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And yet you weren't indifferent enough to not bother typing that. Sad.



Its only manners that makes me respond, not actual interest.

I'll stick you on ignore, I suggest you do the same...


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> fwiw I've never seen Mrs Browns Boys, and have no idea how funny it is (or otherwise)



Its a very odd throwback of a comedy, much loved by the generation who think comedy peaked that time Del Boy fell through the bar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Its a very odd throwback of a comedy, much loved by the generation who think comedy peaked that time Del Boy fell through the bar.


to be fair that was the funniest moment ever on 'only fools and horses'.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Always vital to have at the forefront of our minds that the Labour’s poor election performance was 100% the fault of the cunts who were vile and/or stupid enough to vote for the Boris regime. We must never forget nor forgive their appalling conduct.



What the fuck, precisely, has this got to do a poll of Labour Party members you thick boring twat?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Its a very odd throwback of a comedy, much loved by the generation who think comedy peaked that time Del Boy fell through the bar.



But that was really funny.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 31, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> But that was really funny.



Yes it was.  Strangely when Miranda Hart fell over every fucking episode it was less funny.  Strange thing comedy.

Anyway, is Kier Starmer leader yet?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> have you heard of mumble rap? It’s big these days and kids love it. Most of it is worse than cat screaming. Consumers of music have shit taste as do voters. The world is shit and people are awful. You’re awful too, I’ve thought you’re a cunt and prick for years now.



Jeff, you are coming over like Victor Meldrew m8.

Albeit one who would have to be viewed on HBO.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What the fuck, precisely, has this got to do a poll of Labour Party members you thick boring twat?



You were implying that the low vote Labour got under Corbyn's leadership was somehow a reason to think he wasn't a good leader. But _au contraire mon frère _I would submit it shows how rubbish the electorate are, given their preference for the Bullingdon Club Part II (This Time with Added Bullshit). Brecht was surely right when he said - without a hint of irony - that we ought to dissolve the people and elect another.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Jeff, you are coming over like Victor Meldrew m8.



Steady on, I'm not that optimistic!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You were implying that the low vote Labour got under Corbyn's leadership was somehow a reason to think he wasn't a good leader. But _au contraire mon frère _I would submit it shows how rubbish the electorate are, given their preference for the Bullingdon Club Part II (This Time with Added Bullshit). Brecht was surely right when he said - without a hint of irony - that we ought to dissolve the people and elect another.



Firstly, I wasn't. I was stating that to rate Corbyn more highly than, say Atlee, is a fucking joke and suggests that most Labour Party members are dense and unaware even of their own history. Secondly, your point merely proves that you are dense. The fact you make the same dense point over and over and over again just makes you denser and denser.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Firstly, I wasn't. I was stating that to rate Corbyn more highly than, say Atlee, is a fucking joke and suggests that most Labour Party members are dense and unaware even of their own history.
> 
> Your point merely proves that you are dense.



Interesting, you slander the cadre of the proletarian vanguard whilst apologising for the 12 million plus bourgeois, petit-bourgeois and lumpen strasserists who - through their crosses of hate - essentially acted as the brownshirt enablers of Boris' boot boy regime. For shame.


----------



## oryx (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I genuinely don't understand how you can pay to be a member of a party and not know this sort of basic stuff.



I genuinely don't understand how you can think that.


----------



## andysays (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Brecht was surely right when he said - without a hint of irony - that we ought to dissolve the people and elect another.


If you think Brecht wasn't being ironic when he wrote that, you're even more of an idiot than I already took you for.

Not only a misanthrope but a thick one to boot.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2020)

Interesting Twitter feed CLP Nominations (@CLPNominations) on Twitter
and updating map  re Deputy leader nominations


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Tbf trying to compare is a bit silly anyway, different contexts innit. Atlee for example, all the parties were committed to a national health service, no doubt if Churchill had have been elected then the shape of the NHS would have been different but it's daft to credit post war labour with welfare state or social democracy, it was the forces of the time, just happened in the UK that it was a labour govt that delivered (some of) it


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Anyway I've said this before, for all its many many flaws corbyn's labour arguably the best opposition in modern parliamentary politics, hard to think of another opp that has had the same impact on govt


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

oryx said:


> I genuinely don't understand how you can think that.



I've explained why I think that. If you want to discuss it then post it up - it's a messageboard.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 31, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> to be fair that was the funniest moment ever on 'only fools and horses'.



Nah, the chandelier scene was funnier.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Not sure how meaningful it is but thought this was a bit of fun anyway
> View attachment 197145
> View attachment 197146
> View attachment 197147




24% for the traitor  Macdonald, do they know anything about him, the Means Tests, etc?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Anyway I've said this before, for all its many many flaws corbyn's labour arguably the best opposition in modern parliamentary politics, hard to think of another opp that has had the same impact on govt



Can't imagine Starmer being much good at PMQs. I've met echinoderms with more backbone.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2020)

teqniq said:


> There is more racism and xenophobia in this country than i think people are willing to admit. Not necessarily the full-on shouting and screaming with possible violent behaviour kind though that has certainly been empowered by recent events such as the election, but more of a behind twitched net curtains kind. I read a thread on Twitter not long after the election to which a Labour activist in the Wigan area contributed and according to her as she went from doorstep to doorstep the constant refrain was immigration.



Over 100,000 malicious calls to the benefit fraud hotline very year, lots of curtain twitching there, but very little challenge.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> to be fair that was the funniest moment ever on 'only fools and horses'.



Nah, the Chandelier one


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> have you heard of mumble rap? It’s big these days and kids love it. Most of it is worse than cat screaming. Consumers of music have shit taste as do voters. The world is shit and people are awful. You’re awful too, I’ve thought you’re a cunt and prick for years now.



If we're all so dreadful then why not, and this just an example of one of the many exciting options available to you, why not fuck off?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

treelover said:


> 24% for the traitor  Macdonald, do they know anything about him, the means tests, etc?



The spectacle of an utter no-mark like yourself denouncing as a traitor one of the (by no means unflawed) giants of working class and social-democratic politics is perhaps in indicator of the achievement of Societal Peak Lunacy.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbf trying to compare is a bit silly anyway, different contexts innit. Atlee for example, all the parties were committed to a national health service, no doubt if Churchill had have been elected then the shape of the NHS would have been different but it's daft to credit post war labour with welfare state or social democracy, it was the forces of the time, just happened in the UK that it was a labour govt that delivered (some of) it


the poll doesn't really try to compare the leaders anyway - it just asked whether the respondent had a positive or negative view of each of them.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> the poll doesn't really try to compare the leaders anyway - it just asked whether the respondent had a positive or negative view of each of them.



No I meant the debate on this thread


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> No I meant the debate on this thread


which seems to have been launched from a total misreading of the poll.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

andysays said:


> If you think Brecht wasn't being ironic when he wrote that, you're even more of an idiot than I already took you for.
> 
> Not only a misanthrope but a thick one to boot.



I may be thick, but think I've got a better grasp of irony than you.



SpookyFrank said:


> If we're all so dreadful then why not, and this just an example of one of the many exciting options available to you, why not fuck off?



Who's the _we_ here? Humanity? Where am I supposed to fuck off to? Mars? Or were you suggesting suicide?


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> The spectacle of an utter no-mark like yourself denouncing as a traitor one of the (by no means unflawed) giants of working class and social-democratic politics is perhaps in indicator of the achievement of Societal Peak Lunacy.



Cmon, then, genuinely interested, defend this flawed hero of yours...


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2020)

Wonder what candidates views on this are going to be   Joe Anderson refuses to carryout anymore government cuts


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2020)

Keir Starmer: Labour should argue for return of free movement
					

Leadership frontrunner says party has to make the case for benefits of migration




					www.theguardian.com
				




Both Starmer and Nandy now calling for rtn of FOM


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Wonder what candidates views on this are going to be   Joe Anderson refuses to carryout anymore government cuts



I hope that happens here now that the appalling Julie Dore is standing down as leader.


----------



## andysays (Jan 31, 2020)

treelover said:


> Keir Starmer: Labour should argue for return of free movement
> 
> 
> Leadership frontrunner says party has to make the case for benefits of migration
> ...


To be clear, that article says Starmer is in favour of *European* free movement.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2020)

andysays said:


> To be clear, that article says Starmer is in favour of *European* free movement.


Pret a Manger announce 50 new branches after the next General Election


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can't imagine Starmer being much good at PMQs. I've met echinoderms with more backbone.



Tbh corbyn was shit at them too. The effect corbyn labour had on govt and political direction was due the labour putting forward policy and a political viewpoint that was a fair distance from the margins of contemporary electoral politics, which left rest of spectrum with greater distance they had to travel to cut off any support. Ofc many will argue that this is also one of key reasons labour couldn't get elected under corbyn too, I disagree, I think it was almost entirely down to brexit, others mileage may vary. Likes of Starmer, and the labour party by default too, will be more 'moderate' eg stay closer to the accepted, so any movement will be less. Or not at all.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> one of the giants of working class and social-democratic politics



Not being funny but have you got the right fella here


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Forget PMQs, it's meaningless. William Hague was brilliant against Blair in them, and it meant nothing. because no-one cares.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

treelover said:


> Cmon, then, genuinely interested, defend this flawed hero of yours...



Really? He was one of the most important figures in the creation of, and creators of political space for, the Labour Party when that was by no means the easiest path. For that he's a 'hero' - and certainly in comparison to your, or my, contributions.

He was also an anti-Semite - indeed he described himself as such - which alone would make any analysis of the man _nuanced _at the very least.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Even my old unison branch sec back when I worked for an electricity company who was full on labourite, would defend every labour leader ever, hated the left, loved blair, thought macdonald was a cunt. I mean he headed up a tory majority austerity govt.


----------



## oryx (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I've explained why I think that. If you want to discuss it then post it up - it's a messageboard.



Can't see where you've explained it. 

Sounds like you think people have to be educated in political history in order to be politically active.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Even my old unison branch sec back when I worked for an electricity company who was full on labourite, would defend every labour leader ever, hated the left, loved blair, thought macdonald was a cunt. I mean he headed up a tory majority austerity govt.



The popular film 'Fame is the Spur' was based on him' it was commonsense in the past to see McDonald as a sell out, even in folk memory.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

oryx said:


> Can't see where you've explained it.
> 
> Sounds like you think people have to be educated in political history in order to be politically active.


yeah, it's a bit weird - surely Labour need to be a broad-based popular movement to succeed, rather than a load of dull politics obsessives?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> yeah, it's a bit weird - surely Labour need to be a broad-based popular movement to succeed, rather than a load of dull politics obsessives?



Depends on your definition of dull, political obsessives - people who know the voting figures for Motion 607, Composite 4 of the 1978 LP conference are dull political obsessives, Man U fans who know the names and, roughly, the achievements of its four most successful managers would be nothing special in knowing the history of the club.

If Corbynism could be described as a return to the post war concencus, then you'd assume that the LP membership who overwhelmingly supported him would know what the PWC was and who created it....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2020)

treelover said:


> The popular film 'Fame is the Spur' was based on him' it was commonsense in the past to see McDonald as a sell out, even in folk memory.


there is nothing less common than common sense.


----------



## oryx (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> yeah, it's a bit weird - surely Labour need to be a broad-based popular movement to succeed, rather than a load of dull politics obsessives?


Yes. Don't get me wrong, it's good to be educated about political history but they don't teach this sort of thing in school. 

Not everyone is a history/politics graduate or an autodidact.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Depends on your definition of dull, political obsessives - people who know the voting figures for Motion 607, Composite 4 of the 1978 LP conference are dull political obsessives, Man U fans who know the names and, roughly, the achievements of its four most successful managers would be nothing special in knowing the history of the club.
> 
> If Corbynism could be described as a return to the post war concencus, then you'd assume that the LP membership who overwhelmingly supported him would know what the PWC was and who created it....


And they do, for the most part. But some don't, and tbh that's probably a good thing.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

oryx said:


> Not everyone is a history/politics graduate or an autodidact.



You don't need to be either to have a _basic grasp _of the history of the Party you have decided to join. A basic interest, presumably the reason why people join in the first place, should more than suffice.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

See people slag off the leninists but they understand the importance of political education for the cadre


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> If Corbynism could be described as a return to the post war concencus, then you'd assume that the LP membership who overwhelmingly supported him would know what the PWC was and who created it....



That's kind of my point.  Or put another way why spend your spend your spare timer on Twitter/canvassing/politically active and demanding 'save the NHS' or 'nationalise the utilities' if you aren't aware of where these ideas came from and why they matter.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Depends on your definition of dull, political obsessives - people who know the voting figures for Motion 607, Composite 4 of the 1978 LP conference are dull political obsessives, *Man U fans who know the names and, roughly, the achievements of its four most successful managers would be nothing special in knowing the history of the club.*
> 
> If Corbynism could be described as a return to the post war concencus, then you'd assume that the LP membership who overwhelmingly supported him would know what the PWC was and who created it....



True of many United supporters but not true of supporters of many other clubs


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You don't need to be either to have a _basic grasp _of the history of the Party you have decided to join. A basic interest, presumably the reason why people join in the first place, should more than suffice.


While I think it's fine for political activists not to have a firm grasp of the policies of their party's leader from 75 years ago, I don't think you can even say that from the poll we're discussing. 25% of those polled said they weren't sure or didn't know enough about Atlee to say whether they have a positive or negative view - that doesn't necessarily mean they know nothing about him.  And there was plenty to dislike about the Atlee government, after all.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> See people slag off the leninists but they understand the importance of political education for the cadre



When I joined the Militant you had to attend a weekly 'reading group' with the local 'full timer' (not sure if they still do this now) where you'd be quizzed on various obscure bollocks or even expected to do a 'lead off' on a topic. Whilst the overall experience was life sappingly shit I did learn how to read a book properly (something they didn't teach us at school) and to think.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> True of many United supporters but not true of supporters of many other clubs



If you asked asked Labour Party members who United's best ever manager was they'd probably say Jurgen Klopp.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> When I joined the Militant you had to attend a weekly 'reading group' with the local 'full timer' (not sure if they still do this now) where you'd be quizzed on various obscure bollocks or even expected to do a 'lead off' on a topic. Whilst the overall experience was life sappingly shit I did learn how to read a book properly (something they didn't teach us at school) and to think.


The IS/SWP werent as formal as that but you were encouraged to go to a monthly Sunday day school where there were speakers and they suggested articles or books that you should read. After a while youd be asked to introduce an item at the branch , take part in debates and then possibly chosen to do a talk. All great self learning. I lived in a squat in Hayes down the road from an IMG one and they had to pass a candidates test thing to be a full member.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Written exams for all members before they can start going to meetings or putting a Labour twibbon on their social media profile.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> When I joined the Militant you had to attend a weekly 'reading group' with the local 'full timer' (not sure if they still do this now) where you'd be quizzed on various obscure bollocks or even expected to do a 'lead off' on a topic. Whilst the overall experience was life sappingly shit I did learn how to read a book properly (something they didn't teach us at school) and to think.



I was quite a while after you, 00s, militant no more but yeah more or less. No tests like the squeegees or anything but weekly meetings, every member had to do a lead off every so often etc. Lot of wasted energy of course and they only liked the thinking if it tallied with what you were supposed to think but some was good - it was recommended to me early doors to read the FT as it's the house paper of capital and you should always know what they think and imo that was great fucking advice.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

I mean really, what the fuck. Half the time you lot are all going on about how Labour need to broaden it's appeal to the working class, now it's marxist reading groups and Labour history oral exams?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> I mean really, what the fuck. Half the time you lot are all going on about how Labour need to broaden it's appeal to the working class, now it's marxist reading groups and Labour history oral exams?



I'm just trot nostalgising, I'm not arsed about whether labour types know who atlee is tbf


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm just trot nostalgising, I'm not arsed about whether labour types know who atlee is tbf


I wasn't replying to you, soz


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Dunno if swappies/IS the same but SP rules was don't read the weekly paper, that's for punters, but the monthly magazine was a must


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 31, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> The IS/SWP werent as formal as that but you were encouraged to go to a monthly Sunday day school where there were speakers and they suggested articles or books that you should read. After a while youd be asked to introduce an item at the branch , take part in debates and then possibly chosen to do a talk. All great self learning. I lived in a squat in Hayes down the road from an IMG one and they had to pass a candidates test thing to be a full member.



It was absolutely expected (swp) that you read and were able to participate in a branch discussion and do talks. I was very socially anxious and hated talking in front of a group but i did a lot of branch meetings. The self learning was better than university cos i'd gone to university not really having the skills needed for that.

I'm always amazed at the lack of collaboration in work meetings or seminars - people often just say their thought without building on what's just been said or doing any linking up.  I know in the swp it was always about using whatever was just said to make the political point, not suggesting it was free and creative discussion, but there was always an acknowledgment that somebody had just said something and now it was your turn and things were linked. I've always found it helpful.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 31, 2020)

Not expecting labour members to be like this btw. It was a self educating culture that was of a time and place, had a history.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> I mean really, what the fuck. Half the time you lot are all going on about how Labour need to broaden it's appeal to the working class, now it's marxist reading groups and Labour history oral exams?



I don't think anyone, well me as I went off down the Militant reading group route, is suggesting that Labour can or should replicate them. I would just expect a member of a political party to have a grasp of its history - its achievements and failings, its development and its basic culture.  

Put another way, if Labour is going to 'broaden its appeal' isn't an engaged and politically educated active membership a critical element?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Dunno if swappies/IS the same but SP rules was don't read the weekly paper, that's for punters, but the monthly magazine was a must



Yup. Plus the FT. Plus the 'book of the month' as recommended by the full timer (which they would helpfully sell to you)


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I don't think anyone, well me as I went off down the Militant reading group route, is suggesting that Labour can or should replicate them. I would just expect a member of a political party to have a grasp of its history - its achievements and failings, its development and its basic culture.
> 
> Put another way, if Labour is going to 'broaden its appeal' isn't an engaged and politically educated active membership a critical element?



This - not having a reasonable grasp of the party's history and achievements (and failures) while paying subs and knocking on doors seems a bit like joining the Cliff Richard fan club having never listened to his records....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 31, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I'm always amazed at the lack of collaboration in work meetings or seminars - people often just say their thought without building on what's just been said or doing any linking up.  I know in the swp it was always about using whatever was just said to make the political point, not suggesting it was free and creative discussion, but there was always an acknowledgment that somebody had just said something and now it was your turn and things were linked. I've always found it helpful.



The massive flaw in the Militant was that the only acceptable conclusion was that Grant/Taaffe/Trotsky/the 'young comrades in Chile' were right. But it was the _method and the discipline _that was of lasting value.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> This - not having a reasonable grasp of the party's history and achievements (and failures) while paying subs and knocking on doors seems a bit like joining the Cliff Richard fan club having never listened to his records....



Who's going to listen to Cliff RIchard's records?


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I don't think anyone, well me as I went off down the Militant reading group route, is suggesting that Labour can or should replicate them. I would just expect a member of a political party to have a grasp of its history - its achievements and failings, its development and its basic culture.
> 
> Put another way, if Labour is going to 'broaden its appeal' isn't an engaged and politically educated active membership a critical element?


I mean, it worked really well for the SWP.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> I mean, it worked really well for the SWP.



The SWP stopped putting an emphasis on political education in favour of activism around 25 years ago.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 31, 2020)

I'm not really into nostalgia, and I was pretty critical (of the swp) at the time, a time when there was beginning to be less emphasis on political education, and more on recruiting whoever would join. It seemed to me that if you don't have a membership that can challenge the leadership with the reality on the ground (and democratic centralism is was supposed to be a dynamic model, in theory, from what I can remember) so all the power is held at the top, then you get an organisation that falls apart as soon as the leader dies. Like a cult really.

I should think there are aspects of that dynamic present in the labour party but I haven't been politically active for a long time so I'm not very in touch.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 31, 2020)

This not knowing who Attlee was - surely this is down to the absolutely appalling teaching of history in UK generally?

I've never known a UK student who would have had the basic historical knowledge of kids in Ireland, or Germany say.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> This not knowing who Attlee was - surely this is down to the absolutely appalling teaching of history in UK generally?
> 
> I've never known a UK student who would have had the basic historical knowledge of kids in Ireland, or Germany say.



I've just asked a german kid and they'd didn't know who atlee was either


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've just asked a german kid and they'd didn't know who atlee was either


But did they know how to spell his name?

e2a : channelling Pickman's model


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Silly spelling anyway


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've just asked a german kid and they'd didn't know who atlee was either


Ask them if they know who the, uh, _other _guy was.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 31, 2020)

Of course in Ireland, it's all in the family, history teaching I mean.

Sooner or later, your granny will say "and then the Brits tied poor James Connolly to a chair and shot him, even though he was already dying of his wounds".

What would a UK version of that sort of thing sound like? "And then Henry the Eighth, dirty old bugger, decided he'd help himself to a sixth wife - dirty old man".


----------



## JimW (Jan 31, 2020)

Did Magna Carta die in vain?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2020)

JimW said:


> Did Magna Carta die in vain?


Appropriately retro for the day.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> The SWP stopped putting an emphasis on political education in favour of activism around 25 years ago.


Just to be clear, I think political education is great and there should be more of it in the Labour Party. I just think its absurd to expect  any huge depth of knowledge of party history in a mass-membership political party.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> Just to be clear, I think political education is great and there should be more of it in the Labour Party. I just think its absurd to expect  any huge depth of knowledge of party history in a mass-membership political party.



Especially when much of that history is probably a bit dull. Much more fun learning about revolutions.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> Just to be clear, I think political education is great and there should be more of it in the Labour Party. I just think its absurd to expect  any huge depth of knowledge of party history in a mass-membership political party.



I'm not sure that 'depth of knowledge' is the phrase - we're talking about 500,000 people out of 65 million knowing about the achievements of the Atlee and Heath goverments, the two of which (and whisper it, Blair's) are pretty much the sum total of Labours achievements in its history.

This is, in political terms, grass-is-green, sky-is-blue, shoelaces stuff - it is not obscure details found in dusty times.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Always vital to have at the forefront of our minds that the Labour’s poor election performance was 100% the fault of the cunts who were vile and/or stupid enough to vote for the Boris regime. We must never forget nor forgive their appalling conduct.


I'm not sure if this is just some rhetorical point or if you've just decided to throw away any class analysis whatsoever.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 31, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Dunno if swappies/IS the same but SP rules was don't read the weekly paper, that's for punters, but the monthly magazine was a must



Nobody read the weekly paper.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2020)

treelover said:


> 24% for the traitor  Macdonald, do they know anything about him, the Means Tests, etc?


What kb said earlier. 48% of LP members are unfamiliar with him.


kebabking said:


> The spectacle of an utter no-mark like yourself denouncing as a traitor one of the (by no means unflawed) giants of working class and social-democratic politics is perhaps in indicator of the achievement of Societal Peak Lunacy.


Christ I knew you were on the right of the LP but defending MacDonald. FFS. Treelover is bang on.


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I'm not sure that 'depth of knowledge' is the phrase - we're talking about 500,000 people out of 65 million knowing about the achievements of the Atlee and Heath goverments, the two of which (and whisper it, Blair's) are pretty much the sum total of Labours achievements in its history.
> 
> This is, in political terms, grass-is-green, sky-is-blue, shoelaces stuff - it is not obscure details found in dusty times.


Well, the membership are who they are, although they've obviously lost your confidence. Perhaps it's time to dissolve the membership and elect another one?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I'm not sure that 'depth of knowledge' is the phrase - we're talking about 500,000 people out of 65 million knowing about the achievements of the Atlee and Heath goverments, the two of which (and whisper it, Blair's) are pretty much the sum total of Labours achievements in its history.
> 
> This is, in political terms, grass-is-green, sky-is-blue, shoelaces stuff - it is not obscure details found in dusty times.



It probably seems quite dusty if you're 25.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I'm not sure that 'depth of knowledge' is the phrase - we're talking about 500,000 people out of 65 million knowing about the achievements of the Atlee and Heath goverments, the two of which (and whisper it, Blair's) are pretty much the sum total of Labours achievements in its history.
> 
> This is, in political terms, grass-is-green, sky-is-blue, shoelaces stuff - it is not obscure details found in dusty times.


Heath's government was a Labour achievement?


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

oh lol. perfect.

TBF I think considering we've got 5 years (at least) of a large Tory majority ahead of us, if we're going to demand the Labour membership learn some party history then perhaps the municipal political victories of Lansbury should be what the the Labour Political Education Bureau should be focusing on, rather than just repeating by rote the gains of '45-51.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> ...Christ I knew you were on the right of the LP but defending MacDonald. FFS. Treelover is bang on.



Vacuous crap completely devoid of nuance, or indeed wit.

Macdonald spent pretty much his entire adult life in left wing politics of various flavours - certainly 45 years in the LP and it's predecessors - he did some good things, and he did some bad things - his life, and his times were complex. His story is one of highs and lows, of great political achievements and appalling moral and political failures.

By all means take a view on his life, but only a total fuckwit would think it could be summed up on one word - except, perhaps, _over._


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Heath's government was a Labour achievement?



Christ knows why his name was in my head - Wilson, of course Wilson...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Vacuous crap completely devoid of nuance, or indeed wit.


When did you actually join the LP?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not sure if this is just some rhetorical point or if you've just decided to throw away any class analysis whatsoever.


How dare the working class let Labour down


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 31, 2020)

killer b said:


> oh lol. perfect.
> 
> TBF I think considering we've got 5 years (at least) of a large Tory majority ahead of us, if we're going to demand the Labour membership learn some party history then perhaps the municipal political victories of Lansbury should be what the the Labour Political Education Bureau should be focusing on, rather than just repeating by rote the gains of '45-51.



Are you referring to Poplarism or do you mean Morrison?


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2020)

Yeah, Poplarism. Looks like Liverpool might already be getting in on that, mind.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking  If you are going to criticise the current LP membership for it's politics go ahead but the centre of gravity of the LP at the moment is far closer to the historic centre of gravity of the party (taking into account changes in society as a whole, e.g. it is of course much more socially liberal than it would have been in the past) then the period that you were a member.

If you don't see how your support (reluctant or otherwise) of MacDonald &Blair, the focus on the LP being in government etc put you on the right of the party, both in terms of the present membership and historically, then frankly I don't think you are in much of a position to be criticising the the lack of knowledge of some of its present members.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> When did you actually join the LP?



1993.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not sure if this is just some rhetorical point or if you've just decided to throw away any class analysis whatsoever.



My analysis has tonnes of class.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> kebabking  If you are going to criticise the current LP membership for it's politics go ahead but the centre of gravity of the LP at the moment is far closer to the historic centre of gravity of the party (taking into account changes in society as a whole, e.g. it is of course much more socially liberal than it would have been in the past) then the period that you were a member.
> 
> If you don't see how your support (reluctant or otherwise) of MacDonald &Blair, the focus on the LP being in government etc put you on the right of the party, both in terms of the present membership and historically, then frankly I don't think you are in much of a position to be criticising the the lack of knowledge of some of its present members.



I'm not sure what my politics have to do with LP member's having, apparently, little understanding of the history of the party.

Atlee was a giant, Hardie was a giant, Bevan was a giant, Wilson was a giant, Blair was a giant, MacDonald was a giant, Kinnock and Brown were giants - all were flawed, all brought advancements and all made errors, big ones.

All of them are vastly bigger than a one word epithet on a bulletin board.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 31, 2020)

Giant yes but giant what?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Kinnock a giant, do me a favour hahahaha fucking kinnock man


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)

Get in the sea you inadequate sweaty ginger prick

Edit kinnock this is btw, not slagging anybody on here. Kinnock a giant though, great stuff


----------



## brogdale (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I'm not sure what my politics have to do with LP member's having, apparently, little understanding of the history of the party.
> 
> Atlee was a giant, Hardie was a giant, Bevan was a giant, Wilson was a giant, Blair was a giant, MacDonald was a giant, Kinnock and Brown were giants - all were flawed, all brought advancements and all made errors, big ones.
> 
> All of them are vastly bigger than a one word epithet on a bulletin board.


If Clem was such a giant, how come you can't spell his name correctly?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 31, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Atlee was a giant, Hardie was a giant, Bevan was a giant, Wilson was a giant, Blair was a giant, MacDonald was a giant, Kinnock and Brown were giants - all were flawed, all brought advancements and all made errors, big ones.


Sorry but that's vomit inducing, bad as some royalist claptrap.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 31, 2020)




----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry but that's vomit inducing, bad as some royalist claptrap.



I look forward to reading your political biography...


----------



## yield (Jan 31, 2020)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't believe in the parliamentary road to socialism. 

If they've any sense it'll be Lisa Nandy. I think they'll vote for Keir Starmer.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 1, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Really? He was one of the most important figures in the creation of, and creators of political space for, the Labour Party when that was by no means the easiest path. For that he's a 'hero' - and certainly in comparison to your, or my, contributions.
> 
> He was also an anti-Semite - indeed he described himself as such - which alone would make any analysis of the man _nuanced _at the very least.


In some ways, the portrayal of macdonald as 'the traitor' is a convenient way of ignoring the lack of ideas and alternatives in the Labour Party in the 20s and early 30s. It's a self defence mechanism the labour party uses to avoid analysis of its stupidity and timidity (and that others would have made the same cuts). But still, the likes of thomas, snowden and macdonald were scum.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 1, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My analysis has tonnes of class.


Not any more it doesn't.
Being serious, I find it really depressing to see someone who's politics I respected, even if I disagreed with them, end up in some individualist dead end. I mean what are your politics now? How is the 'socialism' you seem to want to be brought about? I'm not trying to insult you here I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 1, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've just asked a german kid and they'd didn't know who atlee was either



Which is odd, because Europeans, EU or not, often have a very good command of British history.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 1, 2020)

yield said:


> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't believe in the parliamentary road to socialism.
> 
> If they've any sense it'll be Lisa Nandy. I think they'll vote for Keir Starmer.



Do you not get even the slightest worry that Nandy is a Blair level belzebub in waiting? She has a worrying self certainty for someone on the very soft left side. I wonder if she had a southern accent if she would even be in the running.

Maybe that’s unfair, but I can’t see why she is the _obvious_ choice.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 1, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Which is odd, because Europeans, EU or not, often have a very good command of British history.




Never gets old that


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 1, 2020)

Whatever Nandy's faults she does not follow Blair's politics. She's from the soft left of the party and her past record is as, it not more so, left as Starmer's.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 1, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Whatever Nandy's faults she does not follow Blair's politics. She's from the soft left of the party and her past record is as, it not more so, left as Starmer's.



'Left of Starmer' is the new gold standard for damning with faint praise.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 1, 2020)

I'm not saying that her politics are great, that she won't sell out (of course she will she's running for Labour leader) or anything like that just that I don't think Mr Moose is reading her political tradition correctly. She fits far more firmly in the soft left LP group than Starmer does.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 1, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not saying that her politics are great, that she won't sell out (of course she will she's running for Labour leader) or anything like that just that I don't think Mr Moose is reading her political tradition correctly. She fits far more firmly in the soft left LP group than Starmer does.



Both backed Owen Smith. I’m not seeing much between them, but then I’m not sure that legal professional Long-Bailey is particularly different either.

Which is both good and bad. It’s likely that whoever is chosen will follow a similar path in terms of policies. Who has the personality you would trust and trust to lead and make difficult calls is key.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 1, 2020)

Well the split on the Welfare Bill marks a pretty key point of difference between Starmer and Nandy. And RLB is from a different section of the party again.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 1, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Well the split on the Welfare Bill marks a pretty key point of difference between Starmer and Nandy. And RLB is from a different section of the party again.



Maybe, as she has generally voted well on welfare. Maybe she was fortunate to have been in maternity leave for the Welfare Bill itself.

State of Labour then. Christ on a bike.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 1, 2020)

Interesting thread re: Starmer. does not exactly cover him in glory:


----------



## treelover (Feb 1, 2020)

Starmers last act was to increase maximum sentence for benefit fruad to ten years, though not sure if that was for conspiracy, gangs operating, etc.


----------



## Smangus (Feb 1, 2020)

Criminal gangs systematically attack both the benefits and tax systems so no argument for increasing the penalty for that from me. But  if  CPS etc is pursuing those that made genuine errors claiming benefits as "fraudulent ", making them open to the same penalties, then that is an issue.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 1, 2020)

treelover said:


> Starmers last act was to increase maximum sentence for benefit fruad to ten years, though not sure if that was for conspiracy, gangs operating, etc.



As DPP he had no power to increase maximum sentences. He could only issue guidance on how and when fraud cases ought to be prosecuted. It is true that he did call for tougher prosecution of benefit fraud.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2020)

Supine said:


> Simply not true. There have been no labour governments for 45 years apart from blair.


Err Wilson/Callaghan,anyone? 
Buy more importantly you're missing my point- by a mile. It was certainly true that whilst the neoliberal era was in full flow, you probably couldn't win it for Labour on any platform bar a Blairite one.

But then came the Crash, and a decade of austerity. One of the consequences of that has been to fully finish off the neoliberal era, another is the complete collapse of liberal centrist politics. .

All over Europe (and America), the voters have overwhelmingly rejected them. When Labour swung left in the 2017 GE,they reaped a simply huge increase in their vote.

Conclusion: keep tacking left, Labour, times have changed


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2020)

Lefty1992 said:


> Sorry but Blair won three elections, two by landslides on exactly that platform. He's the only Labour prime minister to have tasted success in 40 years. What does that tell you?


It tells me it worked then, but won't work now.Times have moved on too much.

It's also worth remembering that Blair peaked in 1997. In the 3 elections after that, he and Brown managed to lose 5 million votes


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2020)

treelover said:


> Starmers last act was to increase maximum sentence for benefit fruad to ten years, though not sure if that was for conspiracy, gangs operating, etc.


You weren't sure about this last time you posted it the other week too - why not find out?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 2, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> Err Wilson/Callaghan,anyone?
> Buy more importantly you're missing my point- by a mile. It was certainly true that whilst the neoliberal era was in full flow, you probably couldn't win it for Labour on any platform bar a Blairite one.
> 
> But then came the Crash, and a decade of austerity. One of the consequences of that has been to fully finish off the neoliberal era, another is the complete collapse of liberal centrist politics. .
> ...



That really depends on what you call ‘tacking left’. Certainly there isn’t much reason to change economic policy. Nationalisation looks like it can have its time again, the NHS and other services are popular spends.

But culturally and politically? What does that mean to take it further left and then on to a whole range of voters who actively distrust leftist politics as not being for ‘them’ or patronising or top down or restrictive on their aspirations? What does that mean for Foreign Policy when the Russian State kills people including UK citizens on home soil, but the leader of a ‘leftist’ party distrusts the UK state too much to say anything much? What does it mean about our attitude to trade and industry in the widest sense? Simply ‘more left’ doesn’t work unless we know what that means beyond triangulating from who we don’t trust.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> When have they gone for the far left?


Labour have never,ever really been 'far left', but their most radical manifesto was probably 1945.
It won them a landslide, against universally predicted Tory victory.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 2, 2020)

Tbf to Nandy she is bang on money with this and to best of my knowledge the only labour politician, welsh labour or otherwise, to ever actually acknowledge something which is a widespread (and justified) view in the region

BBC News - Labour: Lisa Nandy says north Wales 'feels shut out' from Cardiff Bay








						Labour: Lisa Nandy says north Wales 'feels shut out' from Cardiff Bay
					

Lisa Nandy's comments come as the four rivals to be Labour leader attend a hustings in Cardiff.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 2, 2020)

DP


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2020)

That'll fix it thought Ron. But he was wrong.









						Haringey: Labour members call for 'working-class section' in bid to regain power - OnLondon
					

Members of a Labour Party branch in north London want to create a special grouping within Labour for working-class people in order to help the party form a national government. An invitation to join the project circulated before the Crouch End ward’s regular branch meeting scheduled for tomorrow...




					www.onlondon.co.uk


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 3, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> That'll fix it thought Ron. But he was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see the meeting was held in Crouch End. 

I went there on a T&G stewards course in the mid 1990's. From what I remember of the reception afforded to us in the local alehouses a working class section would be welcome there...


----------



## treelover (Feb 4, 2020)

Where do you sign up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2020)

treelover said:


> Starmers last act was to increase maximum sentence for benefit fruad to ten years, though not sure if that was for conspiracy, gangs operating, etc.


as usual you're not really on the ball.

...









						Benefit cheats face 10 years in prison as Keir Starmer sets out
					

Director of Public Prosecutions said those suspected of benefit cheating can now be charged under the Fraud Act




					www.independent.co.uk
				



the maximum sentence for those charged with benefit fraud under specific social security legislation remains at seven years. ks simply said use another act, charge under another crime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2020)

treelover said:


> Where do you sign up?


haringey. it's in north london.


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> This idea that a half-reasonable soft left platform would engage the public without drawing the ire of the tory press is undermined by the experience of Ed Miliband, who failed to rebuild any kind of Labour base with his wishy-washy shite but got monstered by the media anyway. The only thing which would interest me is someone saying fuck the press, fuck the chattering classes, we're going to talk directly to working people and actually support them, which is the right thing to do whether it gets us elected or not. None of the candidates are even close to that, and even if they were the current PLP wouldn't stand for it.
> 
> A lot of Corbyn's missteps I can let him off for, on the grounds that he didn't have many better options. But failing to plan for his probable downfall by identifying a credible successor, that just smacks of arrogance. Long-Bailey is a joke.



Think Boris is already on step ahead with that - pretty sure I read somewhere he’s going to copy Trump and bypass the media by Tweeting directly to the public.


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 4, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Could have been worse, could have been a bit of Yaz or Bonny Tyler something. 2unlimited. Brothers and sisters, there are no limits. No no no. You reach for the sky. Comrades, there are no valleys too low or mountains too high



lol, I was thinking of this:



Spoiler


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 4, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> it's in north london.



there are limits...


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2020)

I'm watching RLB on Novara at the moment 

It's not good.


----------



## LDC (Feb 5, 2020)

chilango said:


> I'm watching RLB on Novara at the moment
> 
> It's not good.



Will watch that later today. Did you see Dawn Butler on there? She came off well I thought (although pox on all their houses etc etc.).


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2020)

chilango said:


> I'm watching RLB on Novara at the moment
> 
> It's not good.


Doubly not good if the alternatives are son of Blair, Blue Labour's woman in the North and Lady Rochester.


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Will watch that later today. Did you see Dawn Butler on there? She came off well I thought (although pox on all their houses etc etc.).



Good luck. I don't think I'll make it to the half hour mark. It's really dull. It's only homesickness for the accent that's keeping me listening.

Yeah, I saw Butler on there. She was at least watchable/listenable.


----------



## LDC (Feb 5, 2020)

I can't cope with Bastani tbh, he makes me want to throw my laptop through the window. Yeah, fuck she's dull.


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2020)

Actually made it through the whole thing. In fairness to RLB I warmed to her at the end when she was doing the "quick fire questions" and just answered instinctively. 

But Leader of the Labour Party? Facing the same sort of attacks as Corbyn from all sides? Can't see it. 

At least with Starmer I won't care.


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I can't cope with Bastani tbh, he makes me want to throw my laptop through the window.



The Rod Liddle of the 2030s.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2020)

chilango said:


> The Rod Liddle of the 2030s.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 5, 2020)

chilango said:


> I'm watching RLB on Novara at the moment
> 
> It's not good.



As we have have established TyskySour - middle class students with bad MA's and a crass reductionist set of ideas - isn't my idea of fun. But I will give this a watch purely because RLB seems to be being kept away from the mainstream media. I wonder how much of this is about trying to campaign in a different way, go over the heads of the media and talk directly to activists etc and how much of it is about keeping how dull and wooden she is under wraps? 

Now, I'm not much of a fan of Paul Masin either but he is right when he writes _" Despite their differences, the choices of Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and then Corbyn as leader were underpinned by the same fatal assumption. As long as the leader is able to competently present the economic offer, their accent, style, integrity, honesty and cultural values are secondary. The 2019 election result showed that this world has passed. The new alliance of conservatism and the far right can win any election it wants to, in England and Wales, until Labour finds a leader who can both represent the values of progressive Britain and then reach across the cultural divide to attract those who don’t share those values. And that’s why, in the current leadership election, I am focused on the leadership qualities of the contenders first, _

If you accept that analysis - and Mason like a stopped clock is right twice a day - then RLB would be a disaster.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 5, 2020)

If Labour dont win - and they probably won’t- it’ll be because none of the candidates are scummy enough for the British public who just returned a huge landslide for some of the most repulsive mob of charlatans ever elected to these shores. The scabs and scum who voted for the Boris regime are not worthy to lick RLB’s boots.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2020)

I really do blame chris morris now, not adam curtis any longer. A generation ruined.


----------



## andysays (Feb 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> If Labour dont win - and they probably won’t- it’ll be because none of the candidates are scummy enough for the British public who just returned a huge landslide for some of the most repulsive mob of charlatans ever elected to these shores. The scabs and scum who voted for the Boris regime are not worthy to lick RLB’s boots.


The non-ironic Brechtian alienation still going strong, I  see


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 5, 2020)

andysays said:


> The non-ironic Brechtian alienation still going strong, I  see



Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> If Labour dont win - and they probably won’t- it’ll be because none of the candidates are scummy enough for the British public who just returned a huge landslide for some of the most repulsive mob of charlatans ever elected to these shores. The scabs and scum who voted for the Boris regime are not worthy to lick RLB’s boots.





Yeah, the problem with the Labour Party is that it’s not scummy enough


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As we have have established TyskySour - middle class students with bad MA's and a crass reductionist set of ideas - isn't my idea of fun. But I will give this a watch purely because RLB seems to be being kept away from the mainstream media. I wonder how much of this is about trying to campaign in a different way, go over the heads of the media and talk directly to activists etc and how much of it is about keeping how dull and wooden she is under wraps?
> 
> Now, I'm not much of a fan of Paul Masin either but he is right when he writes _" Despite their differences, the choices of Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and then Corbyn as leader were underpinned by the same fatal assumption. As long as the leader is able to competently present the economic offer, their accent, style, integrity, honesty and cultural values are secondary. The 2019 election result showed that this world has passed. The new alliance of conservatism and the far right can win any election it wants to, in England and Wales, until Labour finds a leader who can both represent the values of progressive Britain and then reach across the cultural divide to attract those who don’t share those values. And that’s why, in the current leadership election, I am focused on the leadership qualities of the contenders first, _
> 
> If you accept that analysis - and Mason like a stopped clock is right twice a day - then RLB would be a disaster.



Saying so, since Ed’s time, has been construed as Blairite plotting. Yet it’s been evident since Brown and his ‘bigoted woman’ comment.

If it signals people not getting into positions about the leadership that ended up with Corbyn’s drubbing then good.

But it’s also fair to say that whatever the qualities of the leader they will struggle to break through whatever construction the media chooses to make of them. Starmer will be too posh, too metro, Nandy will be something sexist, too pushy, too tarty, feminazi whatever and Long Bailey will be forever triangulated to Corbyn. 

To counter this the leader has to be manufactured by Labour too, with a simple message, probably on the cost of living. If it doesn’t get traction then they must be disposable. It’s only the Labour leader after all.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah, the problem with the Labour Party is that it’s not scummy enough



It is an electoral problem for them certainly, as witnessed by four consecutive victories for the Tory vermin.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting



One of those things that sounds good until you spend 0.00000001 seconds actually thinking about it. What if I refused to stop fighting, I dunno, a volcano?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2020)

You can’t lose if you don’t play


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2020)

TBF to Jeff there's no escaping from the fact that the only electorally successful Labour leader of the last 40-odd years is an absolute bastard.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> TBF to Jeff there's no escaping from the fact that the only electorally successful Labour leader of the last 40-odd years is an absolute bastard.



He was never going to be a great socialist, but he didn’t particularly seem so much of a bastard at the point of his first election. 

Ed wasn’t much of a bastard, but occasionally liked to pretend he could be, just to jog along with the mood, but didn’t convince anyone he would be good at being nice or being a bastard.

Maybe Labour needs to put up someone who seems like an utter bastard and turns out not to be. Or on the other hand maybe just someone who isn’t one at all.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 5, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Maybe Labour needs to put up someone who seems like an utter bastard and turns out not to be. Or on the other hand maybe just someone who isn’t one at all.



Identifying what Labour needs is a piece of piss - look at the figures who are popular in mass culture. All of them are believed to be 'against the grain', controversial, against insiders, honest and speakers of their own minds, charismatic, funny and emote specialists.

Labour's problem is that none of their rank resemble this in the slightest. Jess Philips tried but faltered on the alter of authenticity and the death rattle of her centrist politics. Even if someone like this did exist they'd be slaughtered by their own Party.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> All of them are believed to be 'against the grain', controversial, against insiders, honest and speakers of their own minds, charismatic, funny and emote specialists.


Come back George Galloway


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 5, 2020)

Get Russell Brand in, obv.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2020)

I'm not sure about the 'honest' bit, mind. All the successful populist pols I can think of have a rep for being bare faced liars.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure about the 'honest' bit, mind. All the successful populist pols I can think of have a rep for being bare faced liars.



'Honest' here tends to mean 'deliberately offensive' doesn't it. It doesn't matter that what Trump says isn't actually true, it's 'honest' in the sense of 'says what he's really thinking, doesn't care who he upsets' sense.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2020)

The party machine filters out the mavericks before they get within a mile of being an MP, let alone the leadership race


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Identifying what Labour needs is a piece of piss - look at the figures who are popular in mass culture. All of them are believed to be 'against the grain', controversial, against insiders, honest and speakers of their own minds, charismatic, funny and emote specialists.
> 
> Labour's problem is that none of their rank resemble this in the slightest. Jess Philips tried but faltered on the alter of authenticity and the death rattle of her centrist politics. Even if someone like this did exist they'd be slaughtered by their own Party.



I’m not sure Labour could play that game. In any case, Trump and Farage with enormous backing got their populism only very narrowly over the line. It’s easy to ahistorically see inevitability, but they could have slipped. And there are too many snags for Labour. Its loudmouths would get called out every day and lack the media to give them direct conduit to the people and build opinion.

What may be more important is to offer an alternative whatever that is. Had Labour had a politician who looks obviously looks like a politician in the public consciousness at the helm this time it may have done better. A Labour populist may have done better against an obvious career smoothie like Cameron.

I’m not advocating this, most professional politicians are born liars, but you can’t simply invent a maverick. Some may think they are shooting from the hip, but most of the public would just see Jess Phillips.

But in the end the pool is so small you can’t nuance the factors too far. The obviously better communicator and leader should win.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Identifying what Labour needs is a piece of piss - look at the figures who are popular in mass culture. All of them are believed to be 'against the grain', controversial, against insiders, honest and speakers of their own minds, charismatic, funny and emote specialists.
> 
> Labour's problem is that none of their rank resemble this in the slightest. Jess Philips tried but faltered on the alter of authenticity and the death rattle of her centrist politics. Even if someone like this did exist they'd be slaughtered by their own Party.



Being white, male, rich, racist, misogynist and an utterly reactionary cunt seems to be the winning formula.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> If Labour dont win - and they probably won’t- it’ll be because none of the candidates are scummy enough for the British public who just returned a huge landslide for some of the most repulsive mob of charlatans ever elected to these shores. The scabs and scum who voted for the Boris regime are not worthy to lick RLB’s boots.


Do you have any politics beyond this weird horrible misanthropy you've retreated into. IMO accusations of ideological purity are usually an excuse to dismiss real political differences and an attempt to enforce a false unity. But in your case you really do seem to have been sucked into a whirlpool of ideological purity - those that vote Tory are scum, the right wing of the LP are scum, those to the left of the LP are wrong/fools.

How do you actually see your political desires been brought about when most of humanity is scum and/or fools?


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2020)

People who vote tory are fucking scabs tbf. I probably wouldn't say that to their face unless they were family or on here, mind.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2020)

Are they? Even when they have voted Labour in the past? Even when they are union members? 
There's a not insignificant number of people who became scabs in 2019.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2020)

I know.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> look at the figures who are popular





killer b said:


> Come back George Galloway



Perhaps not


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> How do you actually see your political desires been brought about when most of humanity is scum and/or fools?



Perhaps Jeff has a _solution_ to the moral degeneracy he sees everywhere.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> If Labour dont win - and they probably won’t- it’ll be because none of the candidates are scummy enough for the British public who just returned a huge landslide for some of the most repulsive mob of charlatans ever elected to these shores. The scabs and scum who voted for the Boris regime are not worthy to lick RLB’s boots.


Don't know where to start with this, it's certainly a puzzle. A veritable riddle within a very angry enigma.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2020)

There isn't a solution, but seeing all the bile that's levelled on here at people from all other political persuasions, it's a bit odd that it's _tory voters_ we're not allowed to call scum. I don't think Jeff is planning on heading down his local estate with a 'TORY BASTARDS COME AND FIGHT ME' placard. He's just posting grumpily on a forum full of other grumpy people. Chill out.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2020)

I don’t think anyone here (or anywhere) takes Jeff particularly seriously. 

The weird misanthropy and entitlement Jeff Robinson is demonstrating is part of what’s gone wrong (Has always been wrong?) with the Labour Party/The Left.


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2020)

It's a weird misanthropy shared by 90% of the people taking him to task, including you.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> There isn't a solution, but seeing all the bile that's levelled on here at people from all other political persuasions, it's a bit odd that it's _tory voters_ we're not allowed to call scum. I don't think Jeff is planning on heading down his local estate with a 'TORY BASTARDS COME AND FIGHT ME' placard. He's just posting grumpily on a forum full of other grumpy people. Chill out.


Yeah, but even within the parameters of what urban is, what we chat about, what we hurl around, he's still talking bollocks.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's a weird misanthropy shared by 90% of the people taking him to task, including you.


You'll take my weird misanthropy from my cold, dead...


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 5, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Do you have any politics beyond this weird horrible misanthropy you've retreated into. IMO accusations of ideological purity are usually an excuse to dismiss real political differences and an attempt to enforce a false unity. But in your case you really do seem to have been sucked into a whirlpool of ideological purity - those that vote Tory are scum, the right wing of the LP are scum, those to the left of the LP are wrong/fools.
> 
> How do you actually see your political desires been brought about when most of humanity is scum and/or fools?



Just to give you the most playful of pokes Squirrel, you would seem to be the last one to give us a rendition of ‘Ebony and Ivory’ given that your own definition of scum or fools seems to be quite broad.

For what it’s worth, not disagreeing with your general point, just finding it mildly amusing.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's a weird misanthropy shared by 90% of the people taking him to task, including you.



Yeah, I’m always banging on about how scummy the electorate are.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 5, 2020)

Wilf said:


> You'll take my weird misanthropy from my cold, dead...



At least Mr Heston enjoyed his misanthropy


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> There isn't a solution, but seeing all the bile that's levelled on here at people from all other political persuasions, it's a bit odd that it's _tory voters_ we're not allowed to call scum. I don't think Jeff is planning on heading down his local estate with a 'TORY BASTARDS COME AND FIGHT ME' placard. He's just posting grumpily on a forum full of other grumpy people. Chill out.


I've no problem with the odd rhetorical rant about political persuasions. I'll admit I've done plenty of my own in the past.

But I'm not just been grumpy with Jeff Robinson. I am genuinely confused about how someone who IMO used to have some real politics, someone who I respected even if I didn't agree with seems to have moved to a position that is so incoherent. I'd actually like to understand how Jeff comprehends his politics now, on what he bases his action on. Has he completely rejected any class politics? Does he still consider himself a socialist? How does he marry these two?

His posts, not just since the election, but even before that seem to me to have headed down a sort of individualistic dead end - (particular sets of) voters responsible for the actions of governments, non-voters responsible for "fascists", etc. Maybe I'm wrong (I hope I am) and he's just having a good rant, but I'm not sure.

EDIT: Reading back my previous post I think it comes across as more personal than I intended it to, so apologises it you felt it was Jeff Robinson. Like I say I really would like to understand your logic because I would like to think there is still some sort of connection between our politics


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 5, 2020)

There has just been a Conservative Party broadcast on the BBC (why now?) and in it some random Northerner goes on about how he grew up thinking Labour had to be the Party for him, but that didn’t chime with his desire to have his own business, so he voted Tory and if Boris was there he would say ‘thank you’ to him.

Frankly, enough of Jeff and his easy going approach, shooting is too good for some people.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 5, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I've no problem with the odd rhetorical rant about political persuasions. I'll admit I've done plenty of my own in the past.
> 
> But I'm not just been grumpy with Jeff Robinson. I am genuinely confused about how someone who IMO used to have some real politics, someone who I respected even if I didn't agree with seems to have moved to a position that is so incoherent. I'd actually like to understand how Jeff comprehends his politics now, on what he bases his action on. Has he completely rejected any class politics? Does he still consider himself a socialist? How does he marry these two?
> 
> ...



No need to apologise, all your posts are perfectly reasonable and polite. But I don’t mean to be too negative, there are lots of things I like about them as well! I’ll get back to you on the substance in the next few days.


----------



## treelover (Feb 5, 2020)

Ok, still not positive, worth bringing up on the hustings, etc.


Mr Moose said:


> There has just been a Conservative Party broadcast on the BBC (why now?) and in it some random Northerner goes on about how he grew up thinking Labour had to be the Party for him, but that didn’t chime with his desire to have his own business, so he voted Tory and if Boris was there he would say ‘thank you’ to him.
> 
> Frankly, enough of Jeff and his easy going approach, shooting is too good for some people.



Next election campaign has started, plus May elections


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 5, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, but even within the parameters of what urban is, what we chat about, what we hurl around, he's still talking bollocks.



A very obvious point to make. But, yet, it still evaded ‘killer’ b


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> A very obvious point to make. But, yet, it still evaded ‘killer’ b



meeeeow.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> meeeeow.



why don’t you answer any of Red Squirrels questions about why you’re a joke?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 6, 2020)

Next Labour leader has a big job on.
Westminster voting intention:

CON: 49% (-)
LAB: 30% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-2)
GRN: 5% (+1)
BREX: 2% (-)

via @YouGov, 31 Jan - 02 Feb
Chgs. w/ 26 Jan


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 6, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I've no problem with the odd rhetorical rant about political persuasions. I'll admit I've done plenty of my own in the past.
> 
> But I'm not just been grumpy with Jeff Robinson. I am genuinely confused about how someone who IMO used to have some real politics, someone who I respected even if I didn't agree with seems to have moved to a position that is so incoherent. I'd actually like to understand how Jeff comprehends his politics now, on what he bases his action on. Has he completely rejected any class politics? Does he still consider himself a socialist? How does he marry these two?
> 
> ...



I can't speak for Jeff but I know there are days when I'm reminded of the abject mess we're in with the prospect of at least another five years of an even more demented tory government than the previous however many, with no coalitions or fingernail majorities holding them back, and I do get overcome by rage at the legions of reactionary dullards of all classes and regions who have allowed this to happen.

I generally keep it to myself though, because I know it's not helpful. If we lose faith in ordinary people then not only will our everyday lives become unliveable but, well, we might as well just join in with the biggest group of people-haters around and become tories.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Next Labour leader has a big job on.
> Westminster voting intention:
> 
> CON: 49% (-)
> ...


Undeniably, but this type of post Tory-victory polling is neither surprising of unprecedented.

The Tories polling 6 points ahead of their 42.4% share of the popular vote in the GE is no real surprise, given that they've 'got Brexit done' and ensured that any other policy discussion has been focused on spending.

The 19 point lead is large, but previous polling patterns suggest that the post GE few months often equate to peak incumbent support.

At least this time, (unlike say 1984) there's no significant '3rd party' pushing Lab into 3rd place in the polling.

But this is prob best left to the polling thread...apols for derail.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Next Labour leader has a big job on.
> Westminster voting intention:
> 
> CON: 49% (-)
> ...



When was the last time the Tories were polling almost 50%? Peak Thatcher?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> When was the last time the Tories were polling almost 50%? Peak Thatcher?



Possibly. Their broadcast last night felt very much like a post war victory lap.

I mostly posted it for a mild laugh. It may have little bearing on where we are even by the next Council Elections. And depressing as it is, it’s nice to see the Libs disappearing down the plug hole.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Next Labour leader has a big job on.
> Westminster voting intention:
> 
> CON: 49% (-)
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 6, 2020)

Yeah there is no way any party can maintain polling of 50%, only way is down. First big wobble will see that fall to circa 40% which seems to be about current tory voter base, give or take


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 6, 2020)

Lol Jeff, for sheer consistency.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 6, 2020)

It's pretty standard for a new government to get improved polls isn't it - people think 'give them a chance' and they haven't had time to really fuck things up yet. Even Theresa May got good ratings initially, before she blew it by trying to say or do things. When you add on that no-one has any idea what Labour will be doing in even a few months a poll like that isn't surprising, I don't think it really tells you anything much.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> There has just been a Conservative Party broadcast on the BBC (why now?) and in it some random Northerner goes on about how he grew up thinking Labour had to be the Party for him, but that didn’t chime with his desire to have his own business, so he voted Tory and if Boris was there he would say ‘thank you’ to him.
> 
> Frankly, enough of Jeff and his easy going approach, shooting is too good for some people.


The Tories are quite clear that the Northern working classes 'lent' them their votes, they are determined to try and keep them so the video is just a small shot in that campaign. Yes it slurs Labour as anti business, anti get up and go but the reality is Labour got a kicking and the Tories are going to kick them when they are down.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 6, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> The Tories are quite clear that the Northern working classes 'lent' them their votes, they are determined to try and keep them so the video is just a small shot in that campaign. Yes it slurs Labour as anti business, anti get up and go but the reality is Labour got a kicking and the Tories are going to kick them when they are down.



The broadcast is, given the last ten years, horrific myth-making, but unfortunately it’s a myth that may endure for quite a while.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> The broadcast is, given the last ten years, horrific myth-making, but unfortunately it’s a myth that may endure for quite a while.


Not sure I've ever seen a Tory video like that before tbh.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 6, 2020)

The idea the tories seem to have that they can now pivot to cultivating a solid working class base in trad labour areas is a nonsense anyway, as much as a nonsense as it would be for labour to do the same in affluent trad tory areas. A time and a place sure, in way that new lab were able to - due to context of a deeply unpopular tory party that had lost its way politically - and in way tories have benefitted from due to current context of brexit, but long term, nah. 

People aren't idiots, even those I know currently backing tories maintain this alongside knowledge that tories aren't for them, don't represent their interests. Might be contradictory but isn't lots of stuff, that instinctive anti toryism hasn't gone away and won't.

Let them throw their energy at it for a bit, in a couple of years it will all have been pissed away anyway.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 6, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Not sure I've ever seen a Tory video like that before tbh.



Very carefully contrived feeling of informality. Effective.

Humble, but aspirational Northern man. meets humble and inspirational PM.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 6, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> How do you actually see your political desires been brought about when most of humanity is scum and/or fools?


This takes the biscuit, what do you think about liberals again?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 6, 2020)

Liberals aren't people tbf


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> The idea the tories seem to have that they can now pivot to cultivating a solid working class base in trad labour areas is a nonsense anyway, as much as a nonsense as it would be for labour to do the same in affluent trad tory areas. A time and a place sure, in way that new lab were able to - due to context of a deeply unpopular tory party that had lost its way politically - and in way tories have benefitted from due to current context of brexit, but long term, nah.
> 
> People aren't idiots, even those I know currently backing tories maintain this alongside knowledge that tories aren't for them, don't represent their interests. Might be contradictory but isn't lots of stuff, that instinctive anti toryism hasn't gone away and won't.
> 
> Let them throw their energy at it for a bit, in a couple of years it will all have been pissed away anyway.


So you're saying that these areas will come back to Labour? I think you are right about the feeling of  Tories arent for them but I also think that theres a equally as large feeling labour arent for them as well.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 6, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I know there are days when... I do get overcome by rage at the legions of reactionary dullards of all classes and regions who have allowed this to happen.



It's unhealthy to bottle up all that rage. Sometimes you gotta let it out, express yourself, feed the beast. And where better to vent than under the cloak of pseudonymity on a left leaning message? Sure, it might also piss off some of the more humourless drones on here like SmokedandStreamed (or whatever the fuck he's called) but that makes it all the more exquisite.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 6, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> So you're saying that these areas will come back to Labour? I think you are right about the feeling of  Tories arent for them but I also think that theres a equally as large feeling labour arent for them as well.



I don't think it's as clean as saying they will all return to labour, maybe they will, some will. Labour's long term fracture from its working class base is something else, all I am saying is that whatever vacuum that leaves won't and can't be filled by tories on a consistent basis


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 6, 2020)

Surprising result in the nomination for Labour West Midlands Mayoral candidate. Not just because of Liam Byrne’s career but also because Pete Lowe and Salma Yacoob both had union backing and momentum support in the case of the latter:









						Liam Byrne wins Labour’s West Midlands metro mayor selection race – LabourList
					

Liam Byrne, MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill and former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been selected as the Labour Party's candidate for the West…




					labourlist.org


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2020)

Wasn't Byrne endorsed by McDonnell?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2020)

killer b said:


> Wasn't Byrne endorsed by McDonnell?











						McDonnell endorses Liam Byrne for West Midlands metro mayor – LabourList
					

John McDonnell has endorsed Liam Byrne's bid to be the Labour candidate in the 2020 West Midlands metro mayoral contest. Officially announcing his support for…




					labourlist.org


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 6, 2020)

killer b said:


> Wasn't Byrne endorsed by McDonnell?



He did, not sure why, but Birmingham momentum supported Salma Yaqoob.

ETA: so did Momentum nationally:


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 6, 2020)

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Right before your eyes.


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He did, not sure why, but Birmingham momentum supported Salma Yaqoob.
> 
> ETA: so did Momentum nationally:



I think it's a mistake to think Momentum have _that_ much influence on the party, especially for these kinds of elections where they've struggled a lot - and a Mcdonnell endorsement would go way further than momentum support with the majority of the left-leaning members.


----------



## not a trot (Feb 6, 2020)

Didn't catch the whole interview with Peston last night. But Long Bailey seemed quite dismissive about Labour engaging with the working classes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 6, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> So you're saying that these areas will come back to Labour? I think you are right about the feeling of  Tories arent for them but I also think that theres a equally as large feeling labour arent for them as well.



So where do they go then?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 6, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think it's a mistake to think Momentum have _that_ much influence on the party, especially for these kinds of elections where they've struggled a lot - and a Mcdonnell endorsement would go way further than momentum support with the majority of the left-leaning members.



Fair enough. But the backing of Unite here is normally a decisive one. In this instance thought the nomination was late and after it looked like the region was going for Pete Lowe


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> He did, not sure why, but Birmingham momentum supported Salma Yaqoob.
> 
> ETA: so did Momentum nationally:



And why not, she's the ex -leader of respect with a few choice words on Rothschild bankers to boot!.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> So where do they go then?


It’s a good question . I don’t know tbh . The Labour vote in some of those places has been declining for decades under Blair, Brown , Milliband and Corbyn . It’s been a gradual erosion and then a final collapse . Local activism might persuade a few to go back, Labour leadership change might , an agenda for the north might but personally I think it’s a long climb back for Labour and it’s an even longer climb back for those deindustrialised areas. 
if the Tories mean what they say then they will make a pitch to retain some of those votes .


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> And why not, she's the ex -leader of respect with a few choice words on Rothschild bankers to boot!.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> And why not, she's the ex -leader of respect with a few choice words on Rothschild bankers to boot!.


anything beyond the single tweet for which she apologised at the time?  The article in question also said all muslims are terrorists and that Obama was a muslim, so it seems rather unlikely that she'd actually read the thing properly.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 6, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> It’s a good question . I don’t know tbh . The Labour vote in some of those places has been declining for decades under Blair, Brown , Milliband and Corbyn . It’s been a gradual erosion and then a final collapse . Local activism might persuade a few to go back, Labour leadership change might , an agenda for the north might but personally I think it’s a long climb back for Labour and it’s an even longer climb back for those deindustrialised areas.
> if the Tories mean what they say then they will make a pitch to retain some of those votes .



I think, with caveat that as you say something could change the course, it's likely we'll see even lower turnout


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> she's the ex -leader of respect with a few choice words on Rothschild bankers to boot!.



No wonder the MSM/brainwashed sheeple stopped her winning


----------



## hash tag (Feb 6, 2020)

It looks like Long Bailey has fallen to 4th, behind Thornberry...https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rebecca-longbailey-labour-leadership-standard-poll-ipsos-mori-a4355286.html


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 6, 2020)

belboid said:


> anything beyond the single tweet for which she apologised at the time?  The article in question also said all muslims are terrorists and that Obama was a muslim, so it seems rather unlikely that she'd actually read the thing properly.


She also called Israelis pigs, but she apologised for that as well.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 6, 2020)

hash tag said:


> It looks like Long Bailey has fallen to 4th, behind Thornberry...https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rebecca-longbailey-labour-leadership-standard-poll-ipsos-mori-a4355286.html



Fourth with the general public that is, not Labour members.

But it’s not a good sign for her ability to cut through.

Corbyn seems to have frustrated his succession (among other consequences) by hanging around too long.


----------



## treelover (Feb 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Surprising result in the nomination for Labour West Midlands Mayoral candidate. Not just because of Liam Byrne’s career but also because Pete Lowe and Salma Yacoob both had union backing and momentum support in the case of the latter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apparently he has recanted on his role in the welfare reforms.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Fourth with the general public that is, not Labour members.
> 
> But it’s not a good sign for her ability to cut through.
> 
> Corbyn seems to have frustrated his succession (among other consequences) by hanging around too long.


Corbynism was a hotch poch alliance , meant everything to everybody and with the exception of Momentums dubious politics leaves very little trace.


----------



## treelover (Feb 6, 2020)

> He promised to end inequality in the West Midlands, warning it was becoming “a tale of two cities”, with skyscrapers being built as people slept rough.
> 
> 
> “There are cranes in our skies. But our homeless neighbours are sleeping in the doorways beneath, where someone now dies every fortnight,” he said in his manifesto, pledging to end “the moral emergency of homelessness, hungry families and cuts to disability benefit”.



Recantation here definetely


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2020)

hash tag said:


> It looks like Long Bailey has fallen to 4th, behind Thornberry...https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rebecca-longbailey-labour-leadership-standard-poll-ipsos-mori-a4355286.html


"An overwhelming 79 per cent of non-Labour voters said they were unlikely to endorse the party if she led it. For the others, the figures were Sir Keir 71, Ms Thornberry 76 and Ms Nandy, 71. "


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 6, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> "An overwhelming 79 per cent of non-Labour voters said they were unlikely to endorse the party if she led it. For the others, the figures were Sir Keir 71, Ms Thornberry 76 and Ms Nandy, 71. "



Non labour voters in 'not wanting to vote labour' shocker.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> She also called Israelis pigs, but she apologised for that as well.


well, she didn't really call them that, did she?  Criticising the apartheid Israeli for using Eurovision to whitewash its human rights record she said it was like 'putting lipstick on a pig'. Fair enough.

But some folk just dont like bloody muslims speaking up about Israel at all.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 6, 2020)

treelover said:


> Apparently he has recanted on his role in the welfare reforms.



Bit fucking late for that.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 6, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Non labour voters in 'not wanting to vote labour' shocker.



Any suggestions how Labour win without some of these non-Labour voters changing their mind?


----------



## Identitarian (Feb 6, 2020)

I would like Rebecca wrong bailey to become leader as she's the most equipped to continue Liebours demise.


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> "An overwhelming 79 per cent of non-Labour voters said they were unlikely to endorse the party if she led it. For the others, the figures were Sir Keir 71, Ms Thornberry 76 and Ms Nandy, 71. "


polls like this are pretty meaningless tbh. Hardly anyone knows anything about Long Bailey other than her being the Corbyn candidate, and people are terrible judges of how they'd react to hypotheticals anyway. The only purpose of polling like this is to try and sway the result.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2020)

Identitarian said:


> I would like Rebecca wrong bailey to become leader as she's the most equipped to continue Liebours demise.


Thanks for that. No need to answer because you're banned from this thread.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Any suggestions how Labour win without some of these non-Labour voters changing their mind?


Could start by only calling the racists racist rather than half the population?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 7, 2020)

belboid said:


> But some folk just dont like bloody muslims speaking up about Israel at all.



Yeah that’s what it is.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 7, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Could start by only calling the racists racist rather than half the population?



Yes, the strategy of calling everybody but fellow hobbyists racist/scum/fascist/gammon does seem to be delivering a diminishing return. Perhaps heads will finally be given a wobble once the Tories breach the 50% mark, but I doubt it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes, the strategy of calling everybody but fellow hobbyists racist/scum/fascist/gammon does seem to be delivering a diminishing return. Perhaps heads will finally be given a wobble once the Tories breach the 50% mark, but I doubt it.



I think the problem might be that the denunciations haven’t been harsh enough yet. Once the scabs and scum are condemned vociferously enough I have no doubt they will realise the error of their ways and come running back to the Vanguard Party begging for forgiveness.


----------



## killer b (Feb 7, 2020)




----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes, the strategy of calling everybody but fellow hobbyists racist/scum/fascist/gammon does seem to be delivering a diminishing return. Perhaps heads will finally be given a wobble once the Tories breach the 50% mark, but I doubt it.



I think the strategy of denouncing everyone else for this probably has a diminishing return too. 24% of people in the UK would apparently vote for an anti-Islamic party. More than 50% of Tory members would not support a leader if they were a Muslim. Those who voted Tory were comfortable enough with voting with this and with legacies like Windrush. Simply blaming over excited lefties and liberals provides a ton of cover for nationalists.

And sure, most people in the UK are fine really, get on with their neighbours and work colleagues of whatever background. But let’s not pretend many don’t have fears, fears that can be manipulated. That for some ‘we want _our_ country back’ meant something quite specific. These differences are not going to disappear and there will be times when the left has to stand its ground.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 7, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I think the strategy of denouncing everyone else for this probably has a diminishing return too. 24% of people in the UK would apparently vote for an anti-Islamic party. More than 50% of Tory members would not support a leader if they were a Muslim. Those who voted Tory were comfortable enough with voting with this and with legacies like Windrush. Simply blaming over excited lefties and liberals provides a ton of cover for nationalists.
> 
> And sure, most people in the UK are fine really, get on with their neighbours and work colleagues of whatever background. But let’s not pretend many don’t have fears, fears that can be manipulated. That for some ‘we want _our_ country back’ meant something quite specific. These differences are not going to disappear and there will be times when the left has to stand its ground.



I'm not sure that the figures you quote take us anywhere. Is anyone really talking in this context about a segment of the tory party membership as representative of anything?

I'm also unclear if you are suggesting that the 'legacies of Windrush' were an issue in the forefront of voters minds in December?  But, let's agree that a form of populism is gathering support across much of Europe which seeks to place the blame for a variety of problems on migrants.

Let's also agree that in those circumstances a number of tactical options are open to the left. But they, surely, should have the following objectives in mind: to isolate the far right, to cut away its peripheral support and to expose the bankruptcy of their politics. Priority would be given to building solidarity through action and addressing immediate issues that bring people together in their workplace and community and which over time promote pro-working class alternatives.

How exactly then are 'over excited lefties and liberals' helping with developing such an approach? How widespread does the realisation/suspicion that the left hate you have to be become before we accept its a problem. Where does the writing off of millions of people by the left leave them to go politically except to the right? If you are told over and again that what you think makes you 'Tory scum'/fash why not accept the label and act accordingly?

Finally, let's also not pretend that 'holding the line' and denouncing millions of people is one and the same thing. Opposing racists and fascists - and actively holding the line against them - and sitting on twitter denouncing half the country as Tories and gammons are very different things.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 7, 2020)

And the readiness that the corbynite and/or the twitter ‘death to the gammons’ people to work with/promote/defend racists and nazis when it suits. 

But then again I would say that, Rothschilds-Mossad agent that I am.


----------



## belboid (Feb 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah that’s what it is.
> 
> View attachment 197763


no, that's the other comment already mentioned.  Do try and keep up.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 7, 2020)

belboid said:


> no, that's the other comment already mentioned.  Do try and keep up.



Yeah, about ‘10 Rothschild bankers’

But people think she’s a racist because of the Zionists. 

Incidentally, do you not think people like her (and you) have played any part in making Zionism much more attractive to British Jews than it was before? Netanyahu loves people like you - handy recruiting sergeants that you are


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Any suggestions how Labour win without some of these non-Labour voters changing their mind?



Appoint Boris Johnson as Labour leader.


----------



## belboid (Feb 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah, about ‘10 Rothschild bankers’
> 
> But people think she’s a racist because of the Zionists.
> 
> Incidentally, do you not think people like her (and you) have played any part in making Zionism much more attractive to British Jews than it was before? Netanyahu loves people like you - handy recruiting sergeants that you are


the article that also said Obama was a muslim and all muslims are terrorists. As I said before. And which she immediately deleted and apologised for.  She fucked up, apologised and went to read up on the topic in question. Which seems like quite grown up behaviour to me.   But not to the pro-apartheid right, of course. 

I think Netanyahu loves people who mindlessly repeat this drivel rather more then he does me.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 7, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Simply blaming over excited lefties and liberals provides a ton of cover for the nationalists.



Come now, the Labour clique certainly said lots of things to alienate working class voters. Like when Corbyn called working class people feckless and lazy and said that poor families produced unloved children. Or when Dianne Abbott said that the people in Grenfell died because they were too stupid to listen to the firemen. And remember that Labour’s campaign strategy was to systematically lie to and deceive the public.

Oh wait, that was Johnson and Rees Mogg and the Tories. It’s almost as if propaganda and rightwing nationalist bullshit are what won the day and blaming the people who were trying counter it is a cop out.


----------



## Celyn (Feb 7, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Of course in Ireland, it's all in the family, history teaching I mean.
> 
> Sooner or later, your granny will say "and then the Brits tied poor James Connolly to a chair and shot him, even though he was already dying of his wounds".
> 
> What would a UK version of that sort of thing sound like? "And then Henry the Eighth, dirty old bugger, decided he'd help himself to a sixth wife - dirty old man".


Wouldn't he be English history?   .  Then again, he did have wars with Scotland.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 7, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I'm not sure that the figures you quote take us anywhere. Is anyone really talking in this context about a segment of the tory party membership as representative of anything?
> 
> I'm also unclear if you are suggesting that the 'legacies of Windrush' were an issue in the forefront of voters minds in December?  But, let's agree that a form of populism is gathering support across much of Europe which seeks to place the blame for a variety of problems on migrants.
> 
> ...



I agree with a lot of this and whatever anyone believes, the only way forward is positively and without the rancour. That’s the reason I think it’s time to move on from this constant repetition of that failure. I don’t think many people are still driving that argument forward, they don't appear to be doing so in Labour anyway.

I do take issue with the somewhat passive notion that left wing blame is such an important factor driving people to the right. There is a large proportion of working class people who have not been culturally Labour since immigration in the 60s and 70s. Economically they may want similar things, but their scepticism of socialism and left wing views is very high. Brexit was a defeat of _socialism _to some, albeit forms most here wouldn’t recognise as being it, the EU, metro liberals. It provided a growing confidence to some hawkish views that are not restricted to a handful of fash. My sister, a kind and normally rational person, shares ridiculous posts on facebook saying that it is not allowed to celebrate Xmas anymore (guess who would be offended) and defying anyone to take her poppy off her. This stuff is absolutely widespread and between this, the Daily Hates and bigoted middle class opinion formers it's an uphill battle to convince people we are on their side. I don't think it helps just saying how horrible we are day in day out. People will just believe it all too readily.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 7, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I agree with a lot of this and whatever anyone believes, the only way forward is positively and without the rancour. That’s the reason I think it’s time to move on from this constant repetition of that failure. I don’t think many people are still driving that argument forward, they don't appear to be doing so in Labour anyway.
> 
> I do take issue with the somewhat passive notion that left wing blame is such an important factor driving people to the right. There is a large proportion of working class people who have not been culturally Labour since immigration in the 60s and 70s. Economically they may want similar things, but their scepticism of socialism and left wing views is very high. Brexit was a defeat of _socialism _to some, albeit forms most here wouldn’t recognise as being it, the EU, metro liberals. It provided a growing confidence to some hawkish views that are not restricted to a handful of fash. My sister, a kind and normally rational person, shares ridiculous posts on facebook saying that it is not allowed to celebrate Xmas anymore (guess who would be offended) and defying anyone to take her poppy off her. This stuff is absolutely widespread and between this, the Daily Hates and bigoted middle class opinion formers it's an uphill battle to convince people we are on their side. I don't think it helps just saying how horrible we are day in day out. People will just believe it all too readily.


You are right on the scepticism of ‘left wing views’ , but some of that is to do with where ‘left wing views’ are at now and have been for the past 20 odd years or more . Economically some of the Labour manifesto were very popular however ‘left wing views’ also wanted to deny w/class voters of any agency in the Brexit vote . ‘Left wing views’ also labelled the very people like your sister ( and funnily enough my sister) with just being labelled racist rather than engaging with them and having a discussion or even as going as far to get them involved in something . Too many are written off because their views don’t reach an acceptable standard. We’ve reached a period whereby many on the ‘left’ are all for ‘socialism’ but socialism without the working class.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 8, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> We’ve reached a period whereby many on the ‘left’ are all for ‘socialism’ but socialism without the working class.


Absolutely, and when you remove the working class from socialism you not only make 'socialism' incoherent you have the problem of how your 'socialism' is going to be brought about.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 8, 2020)

Lisa Nandy seems? to be a little bit better at interacting with normal and working claqss people than the others -- article about her walkabouts in Worksop (+ other now-Tory-MP places) in yesterday's Graun** ....

**In rush, no time for link 

She's not really coming out with any left policies though (so far)


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 8, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> We’ve reached a period whereby many on the ‘left’ are all for ‘socialism’ but socialism without the working class.



Wish I had more time for this, but there's a risk of over-generalising there I'd say.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Wish I had more time for this, but there's a risk of over-generalising there I'd say.


Get what you're saying, but there's got to be a greater risk in brushing over the salient point.
I can recall too many LP meetings that seemed more like gatherings of the local MCs/do-gooders/well-intentioned than organising for socialism. There'd be meetings where barely a WC voice was heard.
If the party can't/doesn't address why so few WC folk feel able/willing to engage, it's lost.


----------



## LDC (Feb 8, 2020)

Just reading this book that covers all this stuff and more.





__





						A Left for Itself: Left-wing Hobbyists and Performative Radicalism: Amazon.co.uk: David Swift: 9781789040739: Books
					

Buy A Left for Itself: Left-wing Hobbyists and Performative Radicalism by David Swift (ISBN: 9781789040739) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




From what I've read so far, it's a bit of a clumsily written book and it needed a better editor, but it hits the mark at least 50% of the time imo. And although aimed at Labour it does have relevance to the wider left, especially the activist left.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Get what you're saying, but there's got to be a greater risk in brushing over the salient point.
> I can recall too many LP meetings that seemed more like gatherings of the local MCs/do-gooders/well-intentioned than organising for socialism. There'd be meetings where barely a WC voice was heard.
> If the party can't/doesn't address why so few WC folk feel able/willing to engage, it's lost.



A thought, is this a reversal maybe? Does the very act of taking part in political parties embourgeois people or make them appear so?

You are there, speaking thoughtfully, discussing political matters. You, therefore must be mc or must have become mc. RLB arrives, a legal professional, which box is she in?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Just reading this book that covers all this stuff and more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've got two major problems with the book. He’ll use, for example, a tweet from a head case as evidence of wider left hobbyist thinking. I’d have preferred a book that criticises genuinely widespread thought rather than the loon fringe. That would have been useful. Instead it feels like it’s trying too hard in places.

Secondly, the book is an argument for a return to the centre. Which, as we know, is precisely where Labour cannot return to


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> A thought, is this a reversal maybe? Does the very act of taking part in political parties embourgeois people or make them appear so?
> 
> You are there, speaking thoughtfully, discussing political matters. You, therefore must be mc or must have become mc. RLB arrives, a legal professional, which box is she in?


No, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I've got two major problems with the book. He uses, for example, a tweet from a head case as evidence of left hobbyist thinking. I’d have preferred a book that criticises genuinely widespread thought rather than the loon fringe. That would have been useful. Instead it feels like it’s trying too hard in places.
> 
> Secondly, the book is an argument for a return to the centre. Which, as we know, is precisely where Labour cannot return to


Though, where it is just about to go.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Though, where it is just about to go.



it does appear that Labour is only capable of two positions. A return to centrism guarantees Labour the same outcome that has befallen every centrist party in Europe. If the Democrats succeed in blocking Bernie and running Bloomberg/Biden and try again to defeat Trump from the centre the same fate awaits them


----------



## LDC (Feb 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I've got two major problems with the book. He’ll use, for example, a tweet from a head case as evidence of wider left hobbyist thinking. I’d have preferred a book that criticises genuinely widespread thought rather than the loon fringe. That would have been useful. Instead it feels like it’s trying too hard in places.
> 
> Secondly, the book is an argument for a return to the centre. Which, as we know, is precisely where Labour cannot return to



I agree, I do think it's clumsy in places and he's trying to be 'edgy' or something, but if you ignore his centrism he still has some valid observations.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 8, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I agree, I do think it's clumsy in places and he's trying to be 'edgy' or something, but if you ignore his centrism he still has some valid observations.



I agree. The strength of the book is the identification of the hobbyist and how they’ve subverted their brand of left politics away from actually doing/achieving stuff and towards their own prejudices


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> No, and if it does, you're doing it wrong.



I’m talking about the perception of the viewer.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> it does appear that Labour is only capable of two positions. A return to centrism guarantees Labour the same outcome that has befallen every centrist party in Europe. If the Democrats succeed in blocking Bernie and running Bloomberg/Biden and try again to defeat Trump from the centre the same fate awaits them


Woman I know was at a CLP leadership nomination meeting the other night; she said the same people willing to blame the press/media for the GE defeat were spouting lines reinforced by the same media advocating the need to moderate. She said it reminded her of those dreadful 'focus group' bits on the news in the run up to the GE in which everyone said how much the problem was corbyn etc.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m talking about the perception of the viewer.


eh?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> it does appear that Labour is only capable of two positions. A return to centrism guarantees Labour the same outcome that has befallen every centrist party in Europe. If the Democrats succeed in blocking Bernie and running Bloomberg/Biden and try again to defeat Trump from the centre the same fate awaits them



Well that’s that bollocksed then. Agree centrism won’t win, but it should be clear that if the Party is considered to be simply ‘Carry on Corbyn’ it won’t win either. And neither represents listening to the voters it lost.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> eh?



You say they look like ‘do gooders’ which is _your_ perception.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> You say they look like ‘do gooders’ which is _your_ perception.


This whole discussion is essentially founded on perceptions of how the party operates/ed/presents/ed.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> This whole discussion is essentially founded on perceptions of how the party operates/ed/presents/ed.



Sure, I’m just wondering what you look like to the casual observer. Do gooder?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> A thought, is this a reversal maybe? Does the very act of taking part in political parties embourgeois people or make them appear so?
> 
> You are there, speaking thoughtfully, discussing political matters. You, therefore must be mc or must have become mc. RLB arrives, a legal professional, which box is she in?


How many political party meetings have you been to? 
And are you arguing the above or saying that is what brogdale (or others?) are arguing?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Sure, I’m just wondering what you look like to the casual observer. Do gooder?


No idea pal; but I could certainly discern mc do-gooders when I used to be in meetings that they dominated with their patronising attitudes and top-down 'solutions' to the poor people's problems.
Just saying.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Feb 8, 2020)

IMO it doesn't matter who the next Labour leader is. Even the Atlee government rolled back dental cover on the NHS and introduced prescription charges. Then there is the job the Labour Party has had in crushing class struggle (which includes Atlee's government), from sabotaging the 1926 general strike, to using the army to break up strikes on multiple occasions after World War 2. The Kinnock government refused to support the miners strike, anytime our class fights back they are the first to denounce it, so why support them or vote for them?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Feb 8, 2020)

I very much doubt a left-wing government could put any decent programs into place, even if they did, under the dictatorship of capital, such reforms couldn't last forever. The economic situation simply doesn't allow it. It's only through our class overthrowing capital, taking power, and abolishing commodity production that permanent systems of welfare can be implemented. If you want to properly understand why capital can not be reformed, it's well worth reading up on Marx's theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which he writes about in part 3 of Capital, Henryk Grossman and Paul Mattick also write on it at length and are worth reading.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 8, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> How many political party meetings have you been to?
> And are you arguing the above or saying that is what brogdale (or others?) are arguing?



I’m just saying it’s easy to point the finger. I’d imagine that most people turning up to most political meetings (that aren’t solely work based) probably look a bit fey. They probably _are_ do gooders to most people, even the working class ones. That’s why they are there. That’s probably what most people on this board would come over as.

I’m not saying you can’t spot Lucys and Tarquins turning up with naked self interest, but let’s not beat up on everyone or forget that people are diverse, not homogeneous.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2020)

_"Here's my principles . . .  you don't like them? . . . I have others."

_


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 8, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m just saying it’s easy to point the finger. I’d imagine that most people turning up to most political meetings (that aren’t solely work based) probably look a bit fey. They probably _are_ do gooders to most people, even the working class ones. That’s why they are there. That’s probably what most people on this board would come over as.
> 
> I’m not saying you can’t spot Lucys and Tarquins turning up with naked self interest, but let’s not beat up on everyone or forget that people are diverse, not homogeneous.


OK but that's very different from an argument that "the very act of taking part in political parties embourgeois people", which is not a position I've seen anyone of this thread make.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 9, 2020)

Hmmm, fake news, someone stirring it? Labour accuses Keir Starmer team of data breach


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 9, 2020)

A Labour not learning the lessons of the last 4 years about divided parties not winning elections:









						'Up To 50 MPs Preparing To Quit Labour' If Rebecca Long-Bailey Wins Leadership
					

Open selections and prospect of "continuity Corbyn" leaves bloc of MPs in despair.




					www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
				




I do wonder who these 50 MPs might be, and if they even exist at all?

Given the state of the RLB campaign, and her drifting levels of support, the timing of this seems very odd. There is also the reality that a lot of the shit stirrers have left the HoC and so you have to conclude that this story could very well be bollocks..


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 9, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> It's only through our class overthrowing capital, taking power, and abolishing commodity production that permanent systems of welfare can be implemented.



Fat chance of that. Trade union consciousness, let alone class consciousness, is at an all time low. Never before has it been so obviously that the virus of Thatcherism has infected the minds of so many working class people - individualism, nationalism and class deference are at an all time high. Orgreave has a Tory MP. Let that sink in. The people of Bolsover voted to replace a working class life long socialist for a carpetbagging Tory prick who works in private digital healthcare provision. Rightwing nationalist bullshit decisively won over social democratic reformism. The prospects for socialism have never been bleaker.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 9, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> From what I've read so far, it's a bit of a clumsily written book and it needed a better editor,


Thats a Zero Books thing. IM not sure they even have editors. Its a very "light touch" publishing model. Most all their books are like that IME


----------



## andysays (Feb 9, 2020)

hash tag said:


> Hmmm, fake news, someone stirring it? Labour accuses Keir Starmer team of data breach


This bit seems odd


> Late last night, Sir Keir wrote to the party flatly denied any wrongdoing by his team members. *He insisted they were investigating a means of penetrating the database - called Dialogue - with no intention to use it*.


----------



## seeformiles (Feb 9, 2020)

I provided the PA system for a Labour leadership selection meeting last week. Whole spectrum of tribes in attendance but Starmer won with Long-Bailey second (Thornberry got no votes at all). Got the feeling that many feel Long Bailey has pissed on her chips by bringing her faith to the fore while Starmer was seen as the most electable - although there were cries of “sell out!” when it was announced. Rayner won the deputy nomination.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> A Labour not learning the lessons of the last 4 years about divided parties not winning elections:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It probably is bollocks, though (and oddly giving all the cries of victimisation and bullying) there are plenty of MPs left who you’d think would do it or certainly murmur unhelpfully about doing it. Not enough were purged, despite their narrative which wholly ignores the attacking they did.

But RLB must be regretting every day her enthusiastic post election endorsement of Corbyn. It looks ridiculous to most everyone to the right or left of her.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 10, 2020)

Sounds more like this happened. Why would starmer, who is way out in front, risk hacking into the system when they’re about to get access to the data in a few days anyway. Nice smear while he was at his mother in law’s death bed.

desperation


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 10, 2020)

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/keir-starmer-membership-data-dialogue-hacking_uk_5e4016dfc5b6f1f57f12d3cb/


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Sounds more like this happened. Why would starmer, who is way out in front, risk hacking into the system when they’re about to get access to the data in a few days anyway. Nice smear while he was at his mother in law’s death bed.
> 
> desperation



You still have to report a data breach to the ICO regardless of the reasons someone claims for committing the breach y'know.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 10, 2020)

The ‘I was only doing research’ excuse is rarely the best look.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 10, 2020)

Let's be honest, they are probably all at it. What I don't get is why this database exists and is so easy to access, wtf is that about


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Let's be honest, they are probably all at it. What I don't get is why this database exists and is so easy to access, wtf is that about


I'd have thought that any party would aspire to have an accurate and up to date data base of its membership for obvious reasons. As regards access, my LP friends tell me that at a local level the data has always been notoriously leaky with loads of folk having access for 'campaigning'.
What I don't get is why the LP is asking its own Leadership/deputy candidates to pay £5k for the privilege of being able to contact the party's members.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 10, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I'd have thought that any party would aspire to have an accurate and up to date data base of its membership for obvious reasons. As regards access, my LP friends tell me that at a local level the data has always been notoriously leaky with loads of folk having access for 'campaigning'.
> What I don't get is why the LP is asking its own Leadership/deputy candidates to pay £5k for the privilege of being able to contact the party's members.



Yeah any org is going to have a database of members (labour has an open directory of members which any member can access, like an internal basic facebook thing), but the data Starmer has been accused of accessing is from Dialogue which is a much wider data set (not just of members I don't think) gleaned from phone canvassing etc. Dunno what this includes (eg does it record who people voted for, which way they voted in ref, trade union membership etc) but still seems remiss to allow open access when actually accessing this data for leadership campaigns is apparently a data breach worthy of ICO investigation


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> The ‘I was only doing research’ excuse is rarely the best look.


Worked for Pete Townsend


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah any org is going to have a database of members (labour has an open directory of members which any member can access, like an internal basic facebook thing), but the data Starmer has been accused of accessing is from Dialogue which is a much wider data set (not just of members I don't think) gleaned from phone canvassing etc. Dunno what this includes (eg does it record who people voted for, which way they voted in ref, trade union membership etc) but still seems remiss to allow open access when actually accessing this data for leadership campaigns is apparently a data breach worthy of ICO investigation


Apols...you know more than I do.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 10, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Apols...you know more than I do.



I dunno, I could be wrong but that's my understanding. Seems a shitty way to manage data anyway


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I dunno, I could be wrong but that's my understanding. Seems a shitty way to manage data anyway


I just assumed it was members & affiliates but, yeah if it's actual punters' data, that sounds more dodge.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 10, 2020)

Whatever happened to whichever one out of ChUK was caught with their hand in Labour's data jar after leaving the party? Was it nothing? I bet it was nothing.


----------



## rekil (Feb 11, 2020)

chilango said:


> The Rod Liddle of the 2030s.


He linked to something on globalresearch last week. 



Spoiler


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 12, 2020)

Have the bookies stopped taking bets on Starmer yet?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 12, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Worked for Pete Townsend


But not Josef Mengele. People are fickle.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 12, 2020)

Starmer’s most moderate pitch to the left sets off a reaction from the usual suspects.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 12, 2020)

So, I think this is the first TV debate:

 

I have to say that I am hoping RLB or one of Nandy or Starmer says something interesting tonight. I'm aware that in a leadership election nobody wants to overreach and be the candidate with the ideas and therefore the one to be shot at by the others. But, when Corbyn won you could feel that he was setting the narrative and shifting the debate. This feels stifling and dull.


----------



## treelover (Feb 12, 2020)

Yes, not even going to the nomination meeting now, look at Bernie, etc, in the U.S.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

Ha. Brilliant watching this collection of tin-eared idiots fucking up royally on the trans issue (see Expelme on twitter). The calculation that leads them to supinely signing up to the list of trans-cult demands is (I presume) that they assume that the Labour Party membership is hugely "woke" and also signed up to this nonsense. It's classic bubble stuff though; most of the gender critical membership have kept their heads down because they can't face the shitstorm that erupts if you dare to say anything inside Labour, but the leadership issue is going to blow it into the open.

Labour really are fucked if they think they can take this to the doorsteps and there are thousands of members who know this. Madness, right up with the stupidest of the ultra left trot micro-cults.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2020)

co-op said:


> Ha. Brilliant watching this collection of tin-eared idiots fucking up royally on the trans issue (see Expelme on twitter). The calculation that leads them to supinely signing up to the list of trans-cult demands is (I presume) that they assume that the Labour Party membership is hugely "woke" and also signed up to this nonsense. It's classic bubble stuff though; most of the gender critical membership have kept their heads down because they can't face the shitstorm that erupts if you dare to say anything inside Labour, but the leadership issue is going to blow it into the open.
> 
> Labour really are fucked if they think they can take this to the doorsteps and there are thousands of members who know this. Madness, right up with the stupidest of the ultra left trot micro-cults.


lol either that or you are just in a tiny minority within the labour party.  The gender hypocritical lot lost every debate, including in the womens sections, so dont try to pretend you were silenced.  You just lost, very badly.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2020)

A substantial majority of the general population support trans self-ID, and I can only assume this would be a much bigger majority within the Labour Party. The gender critical membership aren't keeping their heads down - there just isn't very many of them.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

belboid said:


> lol either that or you are just in a tiny minority within the labour party.  The gender hypocritical lot lost every debate, including in the womens sections, so dont try to pretend you were silenced.  You just lost, very badly.



Ah you may well be right, I've had nothing to do with the internal debate, I found it impossible to summon up the enthusiasm for debating with the lunacy but it's certainly helped me give up my short-lived Labour Party membership. But it seems objectively fecking weird that all these wannabe PMs are signing their own political death warrants so eagerly. Hey ho.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2020)

co-op said:


> Ah you may well be right, I've had nothing to do with the internal debate, I found it impossible to summon up the enthusiasm for debating with the lunacy but it's certainly helped me give up my short-lived Labour Party membership. But it seems objectively fecking weird that all these wannabe PMs are signing their own political death warrants so eagerly. Hey ho.


thats what Patricia Hewitt said when arguing against Labour supporting gay rights back in the eighties.  Thankfully, she was completely and utterly wrong.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 13, 2020)

_Leaps onto thread to declaim on a subject where they then admit they have no background knowledge to call everyone with a different perspective to them a cultist and/or opportunist._

Seriously co-op, take a look at your own behaviour here. If this was someone else doing the same thing on a different topic you'd be well in telling them they were behaving like an obsessive loon.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

belboid said:


> thats what Patricia Hewitt said when arguing against Labour supporting gay rights back in the eighties.  Thankfully, she was completely and utterly wrong.



I remember; I was one of the people campaigning for those rights. Self ID is no comparison of course but obviously that's not something you'd accept. But good luck with it all anyway.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Feb 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> A substantial majority of the general population support trans self-ID, and I can only assume this would be a much bigger majority within the Labour Party. The gender critical membership aren't keeping their heads down - there just isn't very many of them.


There is no general support for trans self-Id either in the population at large, nor in the Labour Party. Nor is there general antagonism. There has been no debate, no discussion and little attempt at either. That is the problem. Attempts at discussion are shut down and there is an all-too-ready resort to slogans and smears at the first opportunity.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

Rob Ray said:


> _Leaps onto thread to declaim on a subject where they then admit they have no background knowledge to call everyone with a different perspective to them a cultist and/or opportunist._
> 
> Seriously co-op, take a look at your own behaviour here. If this was someone else doing the same thing on a different topic you'd be well in telling them they were behaving like an obsessive loon.



I have a fuckton of "background knowledge" acquired over decades of experience in this field. But for sure I couldn't dispute any claims about what had happened about recent debates within the LP because I haven't taken part in them because I can't face the shit, like thousands of others. But now that it's up and in the open my guess is that it will be a real own goal for all the candidates and for Labour, based on the fact that open house self-ID is basically unsellable when people realise the logical consequences of it.

I guess I am being mischievous though; here's a great massive thread on the Labour leadership contest, here's the biggest issue to blow up in that contest in the last 2 days and no one says a thing here? It's fucking fascinating me, I must admit. Don't think your taboos will play in the wider world, seriously, they don't.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> There is no general support for trans self-Id either in the population at large, nor in the Labour Party. Nor is there general antagonism. There has been no debate, no discussion and little attempt at either. That is the problem. Attempts at discussion are shut down and there is an all-too-ready resort to slogans and smears at the first opportunity.


There's no real public debate or discussion on most issues, yet people still have an opinion - as they do here. The polling I've seen is pretty clear - there's zero mileage in any Labour leadership candidate coming out against trans rights in 2020.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2020)

co-op said:


> here's a great massive thread on the Labour leadership contest, here's the biggest issue to blow up in that contest in the last 2 days and no one says a thing here?


it's because  - outside of some very small circles - it didn't blow up.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> There is no general support for trans self-Id either in the population at large, nor in the Labour Party. Nor is there general antagonism. There has been no debate, no discussion and little attempt at either. That is the problem. Attempts at discussion are shut down and there is an all-too-ready resort to slogans and smears at the first opportunity.


that's just not true with the LP. The debate has been had over several years and has, overwhelmingly, been conducted convivially and without rancour. The idea that any discussion is immediately 'shut down' is just a fib propounded by those who lost.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 13, 2020)

co-op said:


> it's certainly helped me give up my short-lived Labour Party membership





co-op said:


> I couldn't dispute any claims about what had happened about recent debates within the LP because I haven't taken part



If you're not a member and not involved in the debates you can't claim a "fuckton" of background knowledge, can you.



co-op said:


> here's the biggest issue to blow up in that contest in the last 2 days



For you, because ironically you're the one working on bubble logic here. Which is why the way things keep turning out are counter to what you think should make sense. Most people don't give a fuck about trans issues one way or the other and the majority of those who do, in progressive circles, aren't "silenced" or "scared" or part of a cult — they just don't agree with you.


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2020)

Newsnight debate last night, all candidates want to see some form of FOM post Brexit. They just lost a large amount of seats largely due to that policy


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2020)

treelover said:


> Newsnight debate last night, all candidates want to see some form of FOM post Brexit. They just lost a large amount of seats largely due to that policy


They can want it all they like; nothing they can do about it going now.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2020)

Again: a substantial majority want some form of (European) freedom of movement.









						Do you think we should aim to retain or aim to end the right for EU and British citizens to live and work in each others’ countries after Brexit?
					






					whatukthinks.org


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2020)

treelover said:


> Newsnight debate last night, all candidates want to see some form of FOM post Brexit. They just lost a large amount of seats largely due to that policy


and that alone i suppose.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Feb 13, 2020)

belboid said:


> that's just not true with the LP. The debate has been had over several years and has, overwhelmingly, been conducted convivially and without rancour. The idea that any discussion is immediately 'shut down' is just a fib propounded by those who lost.


Well there you go. Difference of opinion. I first came across the term ‘terf’ at the London Anarchist Bookfair in 2017. I have been active in politics (Green, Anarchist, Anti-War etc) for more than 40 years, outside of London. Before 2017 I had encountered no discussion or debate on the issue. The ‘T’ had been added to the ‘LGB’ without most people noticing or realising what it meant. Most lefty types in my neck of the woods still have no idea. So it’s not that the debate has been held. Out of the blue, so far as many are concerned, the slogan ‘Trans women are women’ is being recited as gospel. No-one should be surprised if that statement is openly and honestly questioned. To suggest that women should be expelled from the Labour Party unless they unequivocally conform to the new revelation will go down badly, I predict. (My predictions don’t always come true)


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2020)

It's true, this debate simply hasn't been had over and over ad infinitum - here on urban it's just not happened across multiple rancorous threads that everyone's put on ignore because really, shut the fuck up. Now, and here on the Labour leadership thread, is the time to finally get it into the open.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

belboid said:


> that's just not true with the LP. The debate has been had over several years and has, overwhelmingly, been *conducted convivially and without rancour. *The idea that any discussion is immediately 'shut down' is just a fib propounded by those who lost.





You are seriously detached from reality if you think this!


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Well there you go. Difference of opinion. I first came across the term ‘terf’ at the London Anarchist Bookfair in 2017. I have been active in politics (Green, Anarchist, Anti-War etc) for more than 40 years, outside of London. Before 2017 I had encountered no discussion or debate on the issue. The ‘T’ had been added to the ‘LGB’ without most people noticing or realising what it meant. Most lefty types in my neck of the woods still have no idea. So it’s not that the debate has been held. Out of the blue, so far as many are concerned, the slogan ‘Trans women are women’ is being recited as gospel. No-one should be surprised if that statement is openly and honestly questioned. To suggest that women should be expelled from the Labour Party unless they unequivocally conform to the new revelation will go down badly, I predict. (My predictions don’t always come true)


lol, you hadn't noticed a debate so it never happened.  The 'T' got added decades ago, its just not true that its a recent thing. Your obliviousness is your problem, not trans peoples'.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2020)

co-op said:


> You are seriously detached from reality if you think this!


and you aren't in the Labour Party any more, so how would you know?  Some shite on twitter??


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 13, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> The ‘T’ had been added to the ‘LGB’ without most people noticing or realising what it meant.



I hear the entirety of London Pride was shocked into silence by the sudden eruption of trans people from every manhole cover back in 2016, splattering lurid T symbols on every flag they could reach.

Before then, as we know, they were living in sewers and tunnels under the city, invisible to us all other than via rumours of wrecked and devastated Tube station loos, covered in glitter and beard shavings.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Feb 13, 2020)

Joins thread late. I'll get a say via my union on the leader. It was because of what I read here on urb that I voted for Corbyn last time. I recall someone said Corbyn had 'a snowballs change in hell' of winning.

I've been avoiding reading as its been all to depressing and haven't got a clue about any of them except I wouldn't vote for Long-bailey. Her giving giving Corbyn 10/10 showed she wasn't learning anything from him losting an election against a stupid bunch of toffs.

Can you remind me who is still in the running here, pref with a brief synopisis of of why anyone would want to vote for any of them?


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> why anyone would want to vote for any of them?



They're all rubbish. Really quite outstandingly bad.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

belboid said:


> and you aren't in the Labour Party any more, so how would you know?  Some shite on twitter??



That's right I left this week, I saw great chunks of the debate played out over years. I mean I know it's very important to believe that every single thing that any GC person says is WRONG but I think any half-intelligent person could see that this might be possible. Maybe you don't quite get over that bar?


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2020)

co-op said:


> That's right I left this week, I saw great chunks of the debate played out over years. I mean I know it's very important to believe that every single thing that any GC person says is WRONG but I think any half-intelligent person could see that this might be possible. Maybe you don't quite get over that bar?


not many examples there. Thedebates at LP conference? AT womens conference? Held passionately, but openly.  Same in the vast majority of branches.  It blew up in Hornsey and one other (Brighton) where Womens Place organised particularly hard.  Perhaps that says something about them rather than those evil 'trans activists'.

You lost the argument, get over it.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 13, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can you remind me who is still in the running here, pref with a brief synopisis of of why anyone would want to vote for any of them?


The current list in full:

Sir Kier Starmer, QC - Ed Milliband with a knighthood.

Rebecca Long-Bailey - the only reason I can see for RLB is that, wanting to connect with the northern working class, Team Corbyn picked a random woman off the street in Manchester and made her their candidate. 

Hyacinth Bucket - unlikely to get on the final ballot.

Lisa Nandy - personable, speaks some sense, keeps saying the sort of things Blair said before he got elected


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2020)

Spandex said:


> Lisa Nandy....keeps saying the sort of things Blair said before he got elected


Yes, she doesn't appear to much like the Labour Party.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Feb 13, 2020)

belboid said:


> You lost the argument, get over it.


Now where have I heard that before?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2020)

One thing worth noting...in the 2016 Leadership contest 52% of CLPs nominated a candidate...but this time around it looks like there'll be a 98%+ 'turnout' of CLPs nominating.
Looks like the membership are engaged by the 'battle for the soul of the party'.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

belboid said:


> You lost the argument, get over it.





I'd have lost my job if I'd even have joined in the argument and said what I thought. Luckily the Labour Party is going to be irrelevant for at least a decade, more likely for ever, so right now I don't give a shit - it means nothing at all in practise. 

I'm more just astonished at watching this parade of idiocy from the candidates. It's like a sitcom set in some 1970s/80s trot micro-cult "party". Bizarre.


----------



## co-op (Feb 13, 2020)

Anyway, let's not talk about it, top-trending twitter tag for a day was expelme, a hashtag aimed explicitly at the labour leadership issue and we're on an 80 page thread on the labour leadership issue but y'know, maybe if we all just ignore it we can pretend it didn't happen. I'll stop posting right here.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2020)

You know this is an election with a constituency of Labour Party members and supporters don't you? That's who the candidates are trying to appeal to, not the public at large who are, for the most part, not paying any attention.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2020)

co-op said:


> Anyway, let's not talk about it, top-trending twitter tag for a day was expelme, a hashtag aimed explicitly at the labour leadership issue and we're on an 80 page thread on the labour leadership issue but y'know, maybe if we all just ignore it we can pretend it didn't happen. I'll stop posting right here.


omg a 24 hour twitter storm! How could anyone ignore such a thing?


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 13, 2020)

People who think political Twitter storms mean something: Some political wonks

People who think political Twitter storms are basically just wonks having a wank: Everyone else, and a good chunk of the less impressionable (or non-Tweeting) political wonks.


----------



## Jennastan (Feb 14, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> To suggest that women should be expelled from the Labour Party unless they unequivocally conform to the new revelation will go down badly, I predict. (My predictions don’t always come true)


Firstly, its not just women who it is being suggested should be expelled for transphobia - and its quite dishonest of you to frame it like that - but all transphobes who can't keep their arsery to themselves.
And as far as I can tell most women are supportive of trans people and most men aren't. I've seen the same split in social media and in at least one national poll - women broadly supportive and men broadly seem to have a problem, specifically, with trans women.
So anyway - nice to see the same old pattern of transphobes who can't even stick to the facts and don't want to. Also are all transphobes working from a script right now? Or have you been taken over by some sort of right wing, conservative mind control device?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Feb 14, 2020)

Jennastan said:


> Firstly, its not just women who it is being suggested should be expelled for transphobia - and its quite dishonest of you to frame it like that - but all transphobes who can't keep their arsery to themselves.
> And as far as I can tell most women are supportive of trans people and most men aren't. I've seen the same split in social media and in at least one national poll - women broadly supportive and men broadly seem to have a problem, specifically, with trans women.
> So anyway - nice to see the same old pattern of transphobes who can't even stick to the facts and don't want to. Also are all transphobes working from a script right now? Or have you been taken over by some sort of right wing, conservative mind control device?


I referred to women as the target of these proposed measures too carelessly I admit, but not out of dishonesty. It’s just that my experience is that it is overwhelmingly women who are campaigning on this issue, e.g. Women’s Place UK. As for keeping arsery to myself, I presume you mean opinions, or even just questions. Well that’s not going to happen, nor should it, particularly on a discussion forum. 

It’s also far too typical to dish out accusations of transphobia with no justification. You then follow it up with slurs about right-wing mindsets etc. This is all too reminiscent of accusations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Lots of accusations, little to back them up, lack of clarity and definition and no discussion.

Nice to hear from you.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Feb 14, 2020)

My union unite are asking my opinion, but apart from thinking RLB is daft I haven't even heard of any of the any of the potential duputies. Any one got an opinion to spare?



> *                                                                                                                        Labour Leadership Election Survey           *
> 
> 
> The Labour Party is holding elections for the Leadership and Deputy Leadership positions.
> ...



oryx any guidance?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 14, 2020)

Yes I got that too  

<puts pin away>


----------



## friendofdorothy (Feb 14, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Yes I got that too
> 
> <puts pin away>


I haven't done the survey yet - as it doesn't have 'no idea' option.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 14, 2020)

Well I'm still leaning to RBS but I've heard this morning that she's changing her name which just seems a pointless exercise and shifting deckchairs. Can't she just focus on policy that is important to all of us  ...


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2020)

I also got that email from Unite today.

Seems a little odd they're asking this now, they didn't feel it necessary to consult the membership before backing RLB. 

I also don't remember them asking this question last time round, though I might just have forgotten


----------



## friendofdorothy (Feb 14, 2020)

Can't remember what happened last time.  The union may be backing RLB, but don't we get our own individual vote anyway?


----------



## moochedit (Feb 14, 2020)

Richard Burgon wants Labour to sell papers swappie-style 









						Labour should print free tabloid-style newspaper for commuters, says Richard Burgon
					

Labour should print its own “tabloid-style” free newspaper to hand out to commuters, according to Richard Burgon.




					www.politicshome.com


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can't remember what happened last time.  The union may be backing RLB, but don't we get our own individual vote anyway?


Yes we do.

Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say that Unite nominated RLB.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 14, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can't remember what happened last time. The union may be backing RLB, but don't we get our own individual vote anyway?



yes.

the current stage is about unions / local parties / other affiliated organisations deciding who to give formal nomination / support to, and most unions are balloting their members on this (i think it depends on the rules of each union whether they do this or if existing elected committee or whatever can decide.)   if candidates don't get enough support at this stage, they don't go through to the members' ballot.

*Tuesday 7 January:* Nominations open from MPs and MEPs.
*Monday 13 January:* Nominations from MPs and MEPs close at 2.30pm.
*Tuesday 14 January:* Registered supporters applications open at 5pm.
*Thursday 16 January:* Registered supporters’ applications close at 5pm.
*Wednesday 15 January:* Second stage of nominations from constituency Labour parties and affiliates opens.
*Monday 20 January:* Freeze date for eligibility for new members and affiliated supporters. Closes at 5pm.
*Friday 14 February:* Close of CLP and affiliate nominations.
*Friday 21 February:* Ballot opens.
*Thursday 2 April:* Ballot closes at 12pm.
*Saturday 4 April:* Special conference to announce results. 

from here


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 15, 2020)

Emily Thornberry appears to be out of the race









						Labour leadership: Emily Thornberry fails to make it on to ballot
					

Shadow foreign secretary just misses out on getting backing from the required 33 constituency parties




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Emily Thornberry appears to be out of the race
> 
> 
> 
> ...


#Rochester


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 15, 2020)

I'm glad Thornberry's out. She'd have been even worse than Starmer, and that's saying something ...

I'm also hoping that Lisa Nandy gives the other two a closer run than expected ......

ETA : edited to stop her name being spelled 'Thornbury', as when I  posted the above last night


----------



## oryx (Feb 15, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> My union unite are asking my opinion, but apart from thinking RLB is daft I haven't even heard of any of the any of the potential duputies. Any one got an opinion to spare?
> 
> 
> 
> oryx any guidance?


RLB is being seen as the continuity Corbyn candidate but I've admired her for some time and think she's much more than that- a very able politician IMVHO, who's come from a genuinely working class background and got where she is through merit and talent. Look up the Labour Green New Deal. I am backing her. I think Labour should keep John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor but if they don't, RLB would make an excellent one - experience and attention to detail. She also supports internal democracy within the LP - reselection of sitting MPs so those who do not represent the views of the membership can be deselected and not have a job for life if in a safe seat. AFAIK, the others don't.

Starmer - as someone above said, Ed Milliband with a knighthood. Has a dodgy voting record on e.g. welfare benefits and criticisms of his time as Director of Public Prosecutions. Having said that I think he is able and if Labour had been in power during Brexit negotiations, I would have had confidence in him to work constructively with the EU and achieve a good deal. He is the big favourite AFAIK, but look at what happened with Corbyn.

Nandy - been impressed with her media performances but think she is a centrist. I would be happy for her to be leader.

Thornberry - I like her, she is a strong and articulate media etc. performer and I think she's sharp and highly intelligent - however she is likely to drop out due to lack of support. I hope she continues to hold a prominent post in future shadow cabinets. In short - not a contender for the leadership.

I don't dislike any of the contenders (now Jess Phillips has bowed out!) and will support whoever wins.

Deputy - I like Burgon as he seems honest, upfront, passionate and avowedly socialist. I sometimes look at his Twitter as I used to live in his constituency, and he seems to be an excellent and well-liked constituency MP. Can't really understand the dislike on here. 

Butler and Rayner would be very good deputies also.

IMHO, forget the other two deputy leadership candidates.

The two really important factors are being able to hold Johnson, who in the light of the Javid situation is already a worrying PM (if he wasn't already!), and his cronies to account, and to unite the party especially in terms of the Leader and Deputy Leader working together constructively. The latter situation was a dog's breakfast under the last leadership due to Watson's disloyalty. I think any combination of the leadership and deputy leadership candidates will be way better than this. They have to be, and they will be.

That's my two pennyworth. Interested to know why you think RLB is daft though...


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 15, 2020)

That's a pretty fair analysis, oryx  -- all of them have got drawbacks, some serious .

Bur frankly I can live with anyone who'll give Johnson and the govt something resembling a tough time.

I find it very hard to like Long Bailey though, she's come over very porrly in nearly all her public statements to me (admittedly I've only seen TV versions or newspaper reports  -- she might be better in a public meeting??  )

I know Starmer and Nandy are both centrist/centre-inclined, but they both strike me as more confident and competent. And after recent omnishambles , I'd have a *lot* of time for Seamus Milne-free competence ....

(Not voting, not an LP member, not a union affiliate either (PCS) -- just saying  )


----------



## philosophical (Feb 15, 2020)

Not entitled to vote. But of the three I would end up voting for Nandy.
None of them have a solution to the ongoing brexit crisis it seems to me, but then again neither has the Government.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 15, 2020)

I get a vote. Might not bother though, dunno who to vote for. Can't swallow RLB, don't really know why, I voted corbyn twice, just find it unappetising. Only other contender for me is nandy but I think she's ultimately just a soft left type and don't think I could live with myself being a part of that in some small way. Might finally get round to opting out of political fund.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 15, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I get a vote. Might not bother though, dunno who to vote for. Can't swallow RLB, don't really know why, I voted corbyn twice, just find it unappetising. Only other contender for me is nandy but I think she's ultimately just a soft left type and don't think I could live with myself being a part of that in some small way. Might finally get round to opting out of political fund.


I feel where you're coming from, except on Nandy who I'm not at all impressed by. My own view is tainted by the "left winger" Kinnock being elected leader in 1983 and the decade he spent pushing Labour to the right. The number of good people who got sucked into Blairism was depressing enough, but seeing those who hunkered down in their little niches was in a way worse. I just don't have time for it anymore.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 15, 2020)

I’m voting for Rayner. No doubts. Burgon came to speak to us in Brum last week and I really liked him tbf but Rayner’s class background and her understanding of the alienation of WC people is important.

I’m struggling for leader as I don’t like any of them. But Starmer will get fuck all from me


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m voting for Rayner. No doubts. Burgon came to speak to us in Brum last week and I really liked him tbf but Rayner’s class background and her understanding of the alienation of WC people is important.
> 
> I’m struggling for leader as I don’t like any of them. But Starmer will get fuck all from me



Rayner getting a pass on the Welfare Bill, ok, but then all must get to move on.


----------



## oryx (Feb 15, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I find it very hard to like Long Bailey though, she's come over very porrly in nearly all her public statements to me (admittedly I've only seen TV versions or newsopaper reports  -- she might be better in a public meeting??  )



She did an event very near me and I was extremely tempted to go but didn't as it was very popular and I had a lot on that day and didn't want to bail at the last minute thus denying someone else a ticket.

Reports back were extremely positive - has a clear vision, natural speaker who speaks to her audience, rooted, honest, personable etc.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m voting for Rayner. No doubts. Burgon came to speak to us in Brum last week and I really liked him tbf but Rayner’s class background and her understanding of the alienation of WC people is important.
> 
> I’m struggling for leader as I don’t like any of them. But Starmer will get fuck all from me


The only doubt I have about Rayner is the question over whether shes is strong enough to put her foot down as Deputy and marshall whats left of the left to address that very issue .


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2020)

oryx said:


> She did an event very near me and I was extremely tempted to go but didn't as it was very popular and I had a lot on that day and didn't want to bail at the last minute thus denying someone else a ticket.
> 
> Reports back were extremely positive - has a clear vision, natural speaker who speaks to her audience, rooted, honest, personable etc.


Alright its a campaign video and its made by Momentum but she comes across quite well here


----------



## philosophical (Feb 15, 2020)

RLB should've asked the couple for their solution to the Irish border issue. When they (possibly) say they don't know, RLB could say she doesn't know either, but not breaking the GFA is a priority so there will have to be a customs union with all that implies.
They are supposed to know what they voted for.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 15, 2020)

only options are RLB or abstain IMO.Anything else is classic "dont vote it just encourages them".


----------



## ska invita (Feb 15, 2020)

philosophical said:


> RLB should've asked the couple for their solution to the Irish border issue. When they (possibly) say they don't know, RLB could say she doesn't know either, but not breaking the GFA is a priority so there will have to be a customs union with all that implies.
> They are supposed to know what they voted for.


its been solved, border down the Irish sea


----------



## Spandex (Feb 15, 2020)

I was unfair to Long-Bailey in my post on the last page, but no more unfair than the electorate would be to her and infinitely fairer than the right of the party and the conservative media machine will be if she becomes leader.

I want her to be a great Labour leader. I want Labour's 2019 manifesto implemented in full tomorrow. On the evidence I've seen so far they're as likely to happen as each other. She might be a lovely person with great politics, but if that doesn't come across when she's on voters' TV it's meaningless. And so far it hasn't. She always looks like she's trying to remember her script, which is a sure way to lose public trust. I can see her being like Corbyn all over again - supporters prepared to overlook shortcomings, voters less so. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she's still just finding her feet. But I've been following this contest for 2 months now and I haven't seen anything to convince me of her.

Nandy is much better on presentation, but I don't trust the direction of her politics. She's soft left at present but whoever wins will be setting off on a political journey over the coming years, with events and various groups of people pulling or pushing at their politics. I can see Nandy getting dragged to the right.

Starmer I can see being heralded as a fantastic leader within Westminster bubble and then hitting the rocks come the next election.

There's two parts to being a Labour leader. They need to get elected and then they need to implement at least a social democratic program. I'm sure these aren't mutually exclusive, but I can't see any of the people in this contest managing both.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 15, 2020)

Spandex said:


> I'm sure these aren't mutually exclusive, but I can't see any of the people in this contest managing both.


I can't see any of the people in this contest winning an election
therefore may as well vote for the one that keeps the political direction on track


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2020)

ska invita said:


> I can't see any of the people in this contest winning an election
> therefore may as well vote for the one that keeps the political direction on track



That’s defeatist to say the least and completely ignores the Tories’ ability to make themselves look ridiculous.

Five years to go too. Events dear boy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Alright its a campaign video and its made by Momentum but she comes across quite well here




I think she mostly comes across well. She’s smiley and natural with it. The trouble is trying to break that positive personality through more widely when she’s carrying the curse of Corbyn.

I think whoever wins should be on an effective couple of years’ probation. If they cannot really gain ground and perform they should give way without their support getting entrenched. Goes for any of the three remaining.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2020)

philosophical said:


> RLB should've asked the couple for their solution to the Irish border issue. When they (possibly) say they don't know, RLB could say she doesn't know either, but not breaking the GFA is a priority so there will have to be a customs union with all that implies.
> They are supposed to know what they voted for.


Thank you


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2020)

I've just had a cake with Tom Watson.

I just thought you'd like to know that...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 15, 2020)

Keir Starmer sounds like a budget car
Rebecca Long-Bailey sounds like a castle design
Lisa "Cheeky" Nandy sounds like, well, Nando's

For this reason none will win a GE as Labour Leader


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 15, 2020)

Nandy is a fucking disaster zone. Patronising, repeating and agreeing with every right - wing criticism, utterly craven, will go nowhere if she wins. Starmer no better. Long-Bailey or bust for me.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 15, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I've just had a cake with Tom Watson.
> 
> I just thought you'd like to know that...



Did he tell you about a great band called foals


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Did he tell you about a great band called foals



No, we just chatted about the weather.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 15, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I've just had a cake with Tom Watson.



And he didn't once demand to know your solution for the Irish border?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2020)

Combustible said:


> And he didn't once demand to know your solution for the Irish border?



No, I think his mouth was full of cake.


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I've just had a cake with Tom Watson.
> 
> I just thought you'd like to know that...



What kind of cake?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 15, 2020)

Genuinely though, tom watson is an awful man, truly a prick


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 15, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Genuinely though, tom watson is an awful man, truly a prick


Irrelevant but me and my brother thought we saw him once in the People's History Museum. You're right though massive twat.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 15, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> The only doubt I have about Rayner is the question over whether shes is strong enough to put her foot down as Deputy and marshall whats left of the left to address that very issue .



I don’t know. But she’s the only candidate I’ve seen who even gets it. That RLB video you posted being a classic case in point. It’s not just Brexit. It’s not just immigration. It’s a deep and embedded alienation that have developed over 40 years


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2020)

xenon said:


> What kind of cake?



i had an excellent bread pudding.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Feb 15, 2020)

oryx said:


> That's my two pennyworth. Interested to know why you think RLB is daft though...


 Thank you for your full and thoughtful answer. I really don't know much about any of the candates as since the referendum I've been cutting down on the amount of politics I read/ view for the sake of my own mental health.

The only think I remember about RLB is that she gave Corbyn 10/10. That why I though she must be daft  or deaf to the electorate.  

As Mr Moose said


Mr Moose said:


> she’s carrying the curse of Corbyn.


I liked Corbyn and I voted for him -  but after losing 2 elections no one should say he was a sucessful leader. Areas that had been labour through and through voted for the toffs rather than labour.  I don't want a leader who is popular only with LP spporters - I'd like one who can rid this country of the fucking tories.


----------



## oryx (Feb 15, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> since the referendum I've been cutting down on the amount of politics I read/ view for the sake of my own mental health.



I know that feeling!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I don’t know. But she’s the only candidate I’ve seen who even gets it. That RLB video you posted being a classic case in point. It’s not just Brexit. It’s not just immigration. It’s a deep and embedded alienation that have developed over 40 years


Rayner would have been better with that couple.Starmer wouldnt have got anywhere near them and Nandy would have come across a social worky type, doubt if they'd have even attended if Thornbury had been their MP


----------



## philosophical (Feb 15, 2020)

ska invita said:


> its been solved, border down the Irish sea


Yep for now. It does mean brexit as voted for hasn't happened and is unlikely to. RLB should've asked those brexit voters about that.


----------



## andysays (Feb 15, 2020)

Interesting position from RLB on Scottish independence

Labour leadership hustings: Party 'can't win' without success in Scotland



> All three MPs agreed that the party had to win in Scotland to win back power. However, Ms Long-Bailey was the only one to explicitly state she would agree to a fresh ballot on independence. She insisted her party must not "fall into the trap" again of working with the Tories to try to keep Scotland in the UK.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2020)

ska invita said:


> only options are RLB or abstain IMO.Anything else is classic "dont vote it just encourages them".



RLB keeps letting the side down. This time it's talking about 'aspirational' people as distinct from those who have suffered under austerity. Because poverty is caused by lack of aspiration. Eugh, no thanks.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 15, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> RLB keeps letting the side down. This time it's talking about 'aspirational' people as distinct from those who have suffered under austerity. Because poverty is caused by lack of aspiration. Eugh, no thanks.


I'm not paying attention tbh, that sounds shit, but it wouldn't be a vote for her, it would be an anti retreat to the right vote. Or don't vote. 
I don't have a vote anyway, just putting 2p in the meter


----------



## andysays (Feb 15, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> RLB keeps letting the side down. This time it's talking about 'aspirational' people as distinct from those who have suffered under austerity. Because *poverty is caused by lack of aspiration*. Eugh, no thanks.


I believe it's considered good form when making an assertion like this to provide a link to whatever you're talking about so we can judge for ourselves...


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2020)

philosophical said:


> .... RLB should've asked those brexit voters about that.



Have you considered putting your name forward for the _Tin-eared Political Fuckwit of the Millennium _Award?

Its a wide field, but you are a stand out candidate...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 15, 2020)

In fairness on the aspirational thing I think it's a mix of trying to frame stuff in different language to counteract the idea that labour don't speak to w/c people who aren't in crisis or consider themselves to be struggling, and an intent to reframe aspirational itself as a collective not an individual thing. Have heard her talk a few times about getting us all better off etc, ie rise together.

Not remotely enthusiastic about her but I don't think her using aspirational in the way she has should be a red line type of thing


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> In fairness on the aspirational thing I think it's a mix of trying to frame stuff in different language to counteract the idea that labour don't speak to w/c people who aren't in crisis or consider themselves to be struggling, and an intent to reframe aspirational itself as a collective not an individual thing. Have heard her talk a few times about getting us all better off etc, ie rise together.
> 
> Not remotely enthusiastic about her but I don't think her using aspirational in the way she has should be a red line type of thing



The way that word is used, as a handy way to avoid saying 'middle class' when that's actually what you mean, makes it impossible to rehabilitate IMO. You can try and argue a semantic point about what aspiration should actually mean or you can talk about something interesting, but you can't do both IMO.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 15, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> The way that word is used, as a handy way to avoid saying 'middle class' when that's actually what you mean, makes it impossible to rehabilitate IMO. You can try and argue a semantic point about what aspiration should actually mean or you can talk about something interesting, but you can't do both IMO.



Yeah I don't think it's a helpful term, not disagreeing, I just think in this instance it's a clumsy attempt at addressing a criticism not a dog whistle indicating a rightward shift


----------



## philosophical (Feb 15, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Have you considered putting your name forward for the _Tin-eared Political Fuckwit of the Millennium _Award?
> 
> Its a wide field, but you are a stand out candidate...



Brilliant. I have never won an award, so to get one for continually challenging the notion that brexit has happened, and continually asking about, and highlighting the unresolved issue of the post 'brexit' Irish Border is special.
Who would have thought it?
Fantastic, thank you so much for the interest you show.


----------



## Supine (Feb 15, 2020)

philosophical said:


> Brilliant. I have never won an award, so to get one for continually challenging the notion that brexit has happened, and continually asking about, and highlighting the unresolved issue of the post 'brexit' Irish Border is special.
> Who would have thought it?
> Fantastic, thank you so much for the interest you show.



you know the border issue got sorted don’t you?


----------



## philosophical (Feb 15, 2020)

Supine said:


> you know the border issue got sorted don’t you?



Really?
I thought that there is now a transition period in order to try to sort it out in the future.


----------



## Supine (Feb 15, 2020)

philosophical said:


> Really?
> I thought that there is now a transition period in order to try to sort it out in the future.



LOL. Are you a parody account or something?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 15, 2020)

Nandy carrying on where Blair left off in Scotland. 









						Scot Lab council leader hits out at Lisa Nandy campaign after unannounced North Ayrshire visit
					





					www.theredrobin.scot


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 15, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah I don't think it's a helpful term, not disagreeing, I just think in this instance it's a clumsy attempt at addressing a criticism not a dog whistle indicating a rightward shift



Her team have obviously taken to heart the criticism that Labour didn’t understand or speak to the aspirational working class. RLB has clearly been briefed to talk about this. But the way she does, in fact, does suggest that Labour and left genuinely don’t get it


----------



## philosophical (Feb 15, 2020)

Supine said:


> LOL. Are you a parody account or something?



Yes I know it is the Guardian, but this report suggests the issue is not sorted.









						Brexit: Irish border issue could land UK in court, report finds
					

Northern Ireland customs plans could take five years to implement, IfG says




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> RLB keeps letting the side down. This time it's talking about 'aspirational' people as distinct from those who have suffered under austerity. Because poverty is caused by lack of aspiration. Eugh, no thanks.



Sorry, but that’s simply not what she is saying.

But in any case lack of any aspiration is a poverty. It’s not a good thing.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 16, 2020)

oryx said:


> RLB is being seen as the continuity Corbyn candidate but I've admired her for some time and think she's much more than that- a very able politician IMVHO, who's come from a genuinely working class background and got where she is through merit and talent. Look up the Labour Green New Deal. I am backing her. I think Labour should keep John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor but if they don't, RLB would make an excellent one - experience and attention to detail. She also supports internal democracy within the LP - reselection of sitting MPs so those who do not represent the views of the membership can be deselected and not have a job for life if in a safe seat. AFAIK, the others don't.
> 
> Starmer - as someone above said, Ed Milliband with a knighthood. Has a dodgy voting record on e.g. welfare benefits and criticisms of his time as Director of Public Prosecutions. Having said that I think he is able and if Labour had been in power during Brexit negotiations, I would have had confidence in him to work constructively with the EU and achieve a good deal. He is the big favourite AFAIK, but look at what happened with Corbyn.
> 
> ...



Ta for that. RBS (yes I know) and Burgon are the Unite recommendations too


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 16, 2020)

What is this RBS thing?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Feb 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> What is this RBS thing?


Royal Bank of Scotland innit.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2020)

Tenbury Well, on the Worcestershire-Shropshire border, has flooded.


RED warning - immediate danger to life - issued by Met Office/NRW for the Valleys area of South Wales: Merthyr Tydfil to Cardiff, Monmouth to Neath.

E2A: tits, wrong thread....


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 16, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> I liked Corbyn and I voted for him -  but after losing 2 elections no one should say he was a sucessful leader. Areas that had been labour through and through voted for the toffs rather than labour.  I don't want a leader who is popular only with LP spporters - I'd like one who can rid this country of the fucking tories.


So who were these "successful" Labour leaders?

The number of people who lambasted New Labour now employing the same arguments.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 16, 2020)




----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 16, 2020)

Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:









						Labour leadership contest: Keir Starmer defends Brexit policy
					

Favourite to succeed Jeremy Corbyn says party was right and should have gone further




					www.theguardian.com
				




Starmer couldn’t be any more clear. The problem isn’t him, the policy or the politics that led to Labour to end up with a slow motion car crash policy on Brexit. Given this is the case it is clear that for him the blame must be placed firmly at the door of the electorate.

That Sir Kier is the political representative of the new most dangerous class - the Waitrose narrating class cabal - couldn’t be clearer. That it’s ideas are embedded within his campaign is now clear. Those ideas are increasingly anti-democratic and the Brechtian delivery of them is highly disturbing


----------



## Spandex (Feb 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> The number of people who lambasted New Labour now employing the same arguments.


'Being electable' isn't synonymous with 'moving to the right', despite what the Liz Kendalls of the world would have us believe.

If the Labour left could find someone who looks like they could organise their way out of a paper bag, can answer questions confidently and - let's go wild - can demonstrate some understanding of the communities they seek to represent, then they'd be onto a winner. Shame that person remains elusive.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tbf he can hardly say it was a bag of shit given he was the architect and string puller behind it. Even though very clearly given the only substantive difference between 2017 & 2019 was this. 

What is more perplexing is why loads of other people think its a good idea, fucks sake


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks. Can I put you down as ‘maybe’ then?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 16, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


>




He looks as if he is being interviewed in one of the static caravans we have stayed in.

I expect that’s mostly how he goes on holiday.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 16, 2020)

I am getting a lot of text messages on behalf of various leader / deputy leader candidates.  Also got a few last month about london assembly candidates

Have had a few the last day or two addressed to Jade (which most certainly isn't my name)

Wonder if this is the same Jade (who has a mobile number very similar to mine) that I got a lot of calls / messages from sodding Talk Talk for a few years back, about some sort of installation at her business.  I ended up with enough info to trace the business and contact her to sort them out...

I have dropped an e-mail to labour party membership


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 16, 2020)

Spandex said:


> 'Being electable' isn't synonymous with 'moving to the right', despite what the Liz Kendalls of the world would have us believe.


No but the logic of making electability the only, or even key, tenant of leadership has repeatedly led to the social democrat parties selling out, it was exactly what led to Kinnock, New Labour, Clinton, etc. 

Socialism, social democracy, liberalism, conservatism all mean something, if you want to favour Starmer (or whoever) because he is more electable fine, but lets be clear at the point you are rejecting socialism or even strong social democracy. Before Xmas I was having a drink with some people from work, one of them said that they were "a bit of a socialist" and having a go at people for not voting, this was someone that is not part of a union and crossed picket lines, so a scab and not any type of socialist. There's this horrible individualist modern tendency that you can take any actions so long as mentally you remain a "socialist" (or whatever), you can't.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> No but the logic of making electability the only, or even key, tenant of leadership has repeatedly led to the social democrat parties selling out, it was exactly what led to Kinnock, New Labour, Clinton, etc.
> 
> Socialism, social democracy, liberalism, conservatism all mean something, if you want to favour Starmer (or whoever) because he is more electable fine, but lets be clear at the point you are rejecting socialism or even strong social democracy. Before Xmas I was having a drink with some people from work, one of them said that they were "a bit of a socialist" and having a go at people for not voting, this was someone that is not part of a union and crossed picket lines, so a scab and not any type of socialist. There's this horrible individualist modern tendency that you can take any actions so long as mentally you remain a "socialist" (or whatever), you can't.


I think you're projecting a bit there. I haven't favored any of the candidates. I don't see a Labour government as an end, just something that would be better in the background than we've got. The talk about electability as I've read it in the past few pages has mainly been head shaking at how poor the candidates are and a wish that RLB was better, not the old 'abandon principles to get elected' argument.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 16, 2020)

The you was plural not singular, one if you prefer.
And there have been a number of people on this thread that have specifically focused on the important of electability, of Labour being in government.


----------



## oryx (Feb 16, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Even though very clearly given the only substantive difference between 2017 & 2019 was this.



Very much this ^. 

Labour were in an absolute cleft stick over Brexit. Despite Corbyn being like Marmite they managed to get an election result in 2017 that resulted in a hung parliament, and did OK in the local elections the following year. It's clear to me that the reason they lost so many seats was Johnson braying on about getting Brexit done and Labour effectively (or not effectively, should I say) committing to a second referendum. In terms of allegedly losing the hearts and minds of working class people, their policies, and issues like anti-Semitism - not that much changed between 2017 and 2019 IMO.

Despite me being a fan of Corbyn, a new leader may not have so much baggage in terms of their history - things such as talking to the IRA and Hamas, which to me and probably most of you on here seems like a diplomatic and reasoned way forward (and it obviously worked in the case of the IRA) but is easily demonised by the mainstream media into 'he's a friend of terrorists'. 

I say 'may' because Starmer will be tainted with being a remainer. (I voted remain and wish we hadn't left the EU, but didn't back a second referendum). The two others, less so.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> There's this horrible individualist modern tendency that you can take any actions so long as mentally you remain a "socialist" (or whatever), you can't.


I would extend that thought to being a paradigm of modern consumerist individualism generally, not just relevant to socialism.  People think they are in control of their identity, and that there is some kind of inherent true self that can be discovered if they chip away at the stone that surrounds it.  This self sits protected from any social circumstances, relationships, actions or context, inviolable to change.  So we get identity being primary over all, more important than any kind of structural or systemic analysis.  It doesn’t matter what you do or how you relate to the system, it only matters what you _feel on the inside_.

The problem with this is not only that it leads to poor politics and social atomisation.  It also leads to poor mental health.  The level of conflict people feel between their lived reality and this identity they know exists on the inside creates serious distress.  And the existential guilt that is created by fearing the true identity remains unrealised becomes a crippling anxiety.  Authentic feeling is replaced a kind of sincerity to the imagined synthetic creation. The evidence of this is in the horrendous and growing levels of medicalised distress we see all around us.

Anyway, sorry to digress from the riveting three-way failurefest that is the Labour Party leadership race.  But, you know, sometimes the mind wanders.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2020)

Ist advert in the C4 Labour Leadership hustings programme = for the Kia exceed.
See what they're doing, the sneaky right-wing fuckers.


----------



## planetgeli (Feb 17, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Ist advert in the C4 Labour Leadership hustings programme = for the Kia exceed.
> See what they're doing, the sneaky right-wing fuckers.



Was the next one an extended ad for an original Irish cream? For balance like.


----------



## andysays (Feb 17, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> Was the next one an extended ad for an original Irish cream? For balance like.


Followed by a cheeky Nandos, obvs...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> Was the next one an extended ad for an original Irish cream? For balance like.


Dunno, I turned over to Only Connect when they asked them about Caroline Flack for the 2nd question.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 17, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Dunno, I turned over to Only Connect when they asked them about Caroline Flack for the 2nd question.



wish I had


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 17, 2020)

How bad is it? I'm watching traffic cops


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 17, 2020)

It was turgid. Nothing new. Same issues: trans, Corbyn, Brexit, the last manifesto, more Corbyn, best labour leader since 1970.

The candidates, especially the belched up candidate of Waitrose London Starmer, are dreadful. But the format was worse. No searching questions. A tired format of audience Q&A and no clear attempts to highlight the detailed policy or differences between the 3.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It was turgid. Nothing new. Same issues: trans, Corbyn, Brexit, the last manifesto, more Corbyn, best labour leader since 1970.
> 
> The candidates, especially the belched up candidate of Waitrose London Starmer, are dreadful. But the format was worse. No searching questions. A tired format of audience Q&A and no clear attempts to highlight the detailed policy or differences between the 3.



‘Waitrose London’ lol. I mean I know what you mean, it has some posh nosh, but it’s also a store found in service stations and supermarket forecourts. It’s an (albeit not worker controlled) employee owned business and London itself is not a rude word.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 17, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> ‘Waitrose London’ lol. I mean I know what you mean, it has some posh nosh, but it’s also a store found in service stations and supermarket forecourts. It’s an (albeit not worker controlled) employee owned business and London itself is not a rude word.



Starmer speaks for, to and is representative of a specific mileu. Overwhelmingly clustered in London, almost exclusively middle to upper middle class and both furious and scared at the apparent collapse of their specific position within the structural organisation of society.

I respect his class background, but of all of the possible leader candidates - all of whom will come under pressure to conform - he’s the candidate who’ll buckle fastest and hardest. The establishment weight behind him recognises that he’s the one to lead Labour back into the prescribed field of ‘common sense’ neoliberalism. A useful sub if Johnson crashes the project. But also, and this is the key point of his attraction, the candidate who offers the narrating class it’s role back and instinctively values it.

As for Waitrose change it to ‘the Guardian’ if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 18, 2020)

Starmer was doing the ‘have a proper debate’ thing as a means to avoid answering questions.

That ‘best leader since 1970’ thing was clearly trying to make them awkwardly avoid saying Blair, bit of a cunts question - do I recall correctly that it came from Guru Murphy himself and not an audience member? Shit stirrer.

Nandy seemed the most likeable and human out of them, though not necessarily an indicator of who had the best politics, just the most relatable and effective, Starmer too much of a politician, Long Bailey a bit awkward and lacking a bit of gravity perhaps.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 18, 2020)

Dogsauce said:


> Long Bailey a bit awkward and lacking a bit of gravity perhaps.


She's just trying to attract floating voters.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 18, 2020)

This was a joke based around the idea of her 'lacking gravity', Two Sheds. But if you got that but just found it so crap it made you sad, then as you were.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 18, 2020)

Go and sit


Raheem said:


> This was a joke based around the idea of her 'lacking gravity', Two Sheds. But if you got that but just found it so crap it made you said, then as you were.



Sorry I actually liked the joke I was trying to give a :groan: smiley


----------



## Raheem (Feb 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I respect his class background, but of all of the possible leader candidates - all of whom will come under pressure to conform - he’s the candidate who’ll buckle fastest and hardest.


I'm really not sure about this. It might be fair enough to suspect he might be the least unhappy about being brought to heel (assuming we give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just a pure Blairite fifth columnist). But the mechanics are complex. He's also the candidate the Labour right and the media will find it hardest to mobilise against (because he's a man, because he can't be accused of inexperience and because it will be harder to unite centrist against him). So, in the event that he pursues a decent policy agenda (I would agree that it is far from obvious he will), he might just get away with it. 

On the other hand, RLB is more likely to want to pursue worthwhile policies, but I'd be a long way from sure she has the skills to resist the inevitable relentless attacks and plots. Her choice might end up being about doing what she has to to survive. 

It feels like a pig in a poke, but that's democracy for you. I'll vote for RLB but, whoever wins, I think it will be a while before it's clear what the result means.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Starmer speaks for, to and is representative of a specific mileu. Overwhelmingly clustered in London, almost exclusively middle to upper middle class and both furious and scared at the apparent collapse of their specific position within the structural organisation of society.
> 
> I respect his class background, but of all of the possible leader candidates - all of whom will come under pressure to conform - he’s the candidate who’ll buckle fastest and hardest. The establishment weight behind him recognises that he’s the one to lead Labour back into the prescribed field of ‘common sense’ neoliberalism. A useful sub if Johnson crashes the project. But also, and this is the key point of his attraction, the candidate who offers the narrating class it’s role back and instinctively values it.
> 
> As for Waitrose change it to ‘the Guardian’ if it makes you feel better.



That’s fair enough, though to be even fairer they will all buckle and it is guesswork which one would do so the least. That would appear to be RLB, but I couldn’t say there is much to be confident of that, nor that events wouldn’t overtake her in any case.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 18, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> That’s fair enough, though to be even fairer they will all buckle and it is guesswork which one would do so the least. That would appear to be RLB, but I couldn’t say there is much to be confident of that, nor that events wouldn’t overtake her in any case.



I agree that’s where it’s descended to. As for RLB’s campaign, it’s almost _sad _in its pitiful lack of ideas, energy and inspiration. You can almost hear the air wheezing out of it.

But my impression of her and Nandy is that they are less instinctively comfortable with the ideas, the culture and the social formation about to recapture Labour than Starmer. It’s not much to cling to I know.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 18, 2020)

Raheem said:


> I'm really not sure about this. It might be fair enough to suspect he might be the least unhappy about being brought to heel (assuming we give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just a pure Blairite fifth columnist). But the mechanics are complex. He's also the candidate the Labour right and the media will find it hardest to mobilise against (because he's a man, because he can't be accused of inexperience and because it will be harder to unite centrist against him). So, in the event that he pursues a decent policy agenda (I would agree that it is far from obvious he will), he might just get away with it.



Two points on this.

Firstly, I see this question the other way around. I think Starmer is seen as the _man _who can move sections of the Party for those reasons.

But the more substantive point is this. The main argument for Corbyn was that he represented, no matter how clumsily, a clear rejection of the hegemony of neo-liberal ‘common sense’ of the last 40 years. I’ve never been slow to attack his myriad shortcomings but have always pointed to the significance of this singular point.

Everything about Starmer suggests a man at ease with the constructed reality that infects our politics, culture, society and the self. I sense the opposite of a flinty determination to avoid Labour folding back into ‘the real’.

RLB is hopeless. Nandy is a brilliant communicator but there is a black hole of substance and politics. But in both cases there is a glimmer, no more than that I accept, that they recognise the pitfalls of such a journey.

Even the dogs on the street recognise the new terrain of politics. But watching Starmer last night he really struck me as a retro politician. Someone who still believes that social democracy third way politics have a future. Someone who instinctively shares the anger of the narrating class and wants to reconstitute it’s position within the ‘real’.

In this election the best option is a victory for the hopeless or clueless. The alternative is much worse


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Two points on this.
> 
> Firstly, I see this question the other way around. I think Starmer is seen as the _man _who can move sections of the Party for those reasons.
> 
> ...


Pretty much spot on IMO.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 18, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I would extend that thought to being a paradigm of modern consumerist individualism generally, not just relevant to socialism.  People think they are in control of their identity, and that there is some kind of inherent true self that can be discovered if they chip away at the stone that surrounds it.  This self sits protected from any social circumstances, relationships, actions or context, inviolable to change.  So we get identity being primary over all, more important than any kind of structural or systemic analysis.  It doesn’t matter what you do or how you relate to the system, it only matters what you _feel on the inside_.
> 
> The problem with this is not only that it leads to poor politics and social atomisation.  It also leads to poor mental health.  The level of conflict people feel between their lived reality and this identity they know exists on the inside creates serious distress.  And the existential guilt that is created by fearing the true identity remains unrealised becomes a crippling anxiety.  Authentic feeling is replaced a kind of sincerity to the imagined synthetic creation. The evidence of this is in the horrendous and growing levels of medicalised distress we see all around us.


Excellent post, rang a lot of bells. Thank you kabbes


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

As it happens, you only get waitrose at service stations in the south. Think they've got one at a services near Stoke but never seen one further north that that.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> As it happens, you only get waitrose at service stations in the south. Think they've got one at a services near Stoke but never seen one further north that that.


Yer missing nothing since they they got mean & arsey with the reductions. I only bottom-feed from M&S now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yer missing nothing since they they got mean & arsey with the reductions. I only bottom-feed from M&S now.



I only ever used waitrose in that brief glorious period where you could get free no strings coffee


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I would extend that thought to being a paradigm of modern consumerist individualism generally, not just relevant to socialism.  People think they are in control of their identity, and that there is some kind of inherent true self that can be discovered if they chip away at the stone that surrounds it.  This self sits protected from any social circumstances, relationships, actions or context, inviolable to change.  So we get identity being primary over all, more important than any kind of structural or systemic analysis.  It doesn’t matter what you do or how you relate to the system, it only matters what you _feel on the inside_.
> 
> The problem with this is not only that it leads to poor politics and social atomisation.  It also leads to poor mental health.  The level of conflict people feel between their lived reality and this identity they know exists on the inside creates serious distress.  And the existential guilt that is created by fearing the true identity remains unrealised becomes a crippling anxiety.  Authentic feeling is replaced a kind of sincerity to the imagined synthetic creation. The evidence of this is in the horrendous and growing levels of medicalised distress we see all around us.
> 
> Anyway, sorry to digress from the riveting three-way failurefest that is the Labour Party leadership race.  But, you know, sometimes the mind wanders.



Whilst I agree with a lot of this, I don't believe the notion of an immutable self is the only cause of the soaring levels of anxiety and mental ill health we see. It's probably not what you're actually saying, but this idea of psychic distress being a failure of the self to adapt to society is very much an individualist one, and one which lets society (or the power brokers thereof) off the hook for all sorts of cruelty.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I only ever used waitrose in that brief glorious period where you could get free no strings coffee


Depending on the store, that's still a runner...if you just rock up with your own cup and ignore any staff...they just let you crack on; why wouldn't they? Mind you at the Barbican store they've got those shitty little card reader things; bastards.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whilst I agree with a lot of this, I don't believe the notion of an immutable self is the only cause of the soaring levels of anxiety and mental ill health we see. It's probably not what you're actually saying, but this idea of psychic distress being a failure of the self to adapt to society is very much an individualist one, and one which lets society (or the power brokers thereof) off the hook for all sorts of cruelty.


Well quite — I’m saying the exact opposite.  I’m saying that we are a function of our environment (social and otherwise) and that the boundary between the self and others is actually fuzzy at best.  I’m saying that this means a focus on “discovering” one’s self-identity rather than _understanding how it is constantly constructed and reconstructed_ is a problem.  I’m certainly not saying the problem will be solved by even more individual self-determination!


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 18, 2020)

I am appalled and angry about Nandy's comments on housing a convicted male rapist in a woman's prison. Not only would it put female prisoners at risk of serious harm, it is a free gift to all the party's enemies.









						Lisa Nandy says child rapists should be in women’s prisons
					

Julia Long questions Labour leadership hopeful, Lisa Nandy, on sex self ID.




					t.co


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I am appalled and angry about Nandy's comments on housing a convicted male rapist in a woman's prison. Not only would it put female prisoners at risk of serious harm, it is a free gift to all the party's enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Key policy in trying to win back working class voters?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 18, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Key policy in trying to win back working class voters?


Always with the dark sarcasm in the classroom, eh Step?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Always with the dark sarcasm in the classroom, eh Step?


Muttering from the back  Idris


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I am appalled and angry about Nandy's comments on housing a convicted male rapist in a woman's prison. Not only would it put female prisoners at risk of serious harm, it is a free gift to all the party's enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To be fair to her she clarified her position much better on the C4 debate last night. But, Nandy, Labour and much of the left generally is caught on the horns of an indentarian dilemma on this issue. As Steps suggests the weight given to the issue - it got more time, at the behest of the audience it must be said, than the NHS, Education, poverty and crime combined - is significant


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> To be fair to her she clarified her position much better on the C4 debate last night. But, Nandy, Labour and much of the left generally is caught on the horns of an indentarian dilemma on this issue. As Steps suggests the weight given to the issue - it got more time, at the behest of the audience it must be said, than the NHS, Education, poverty and crime combined - is significant


I want to see her reverse her position, not "clarify" it.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Feb 18, 2020)

Talking of significant, major issues of our time, why did nobody mention the environment?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 18, 2020)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Talking of significant, major issues of our time, why did nobody mention the environment?



To be fair the format was garbage. The audience Q8A format is shite. A circular debate on the same issues - Brexit, Corbyn, the manifesto, identity politics - and the same answers is taking us nowhere. The entire labour leader debate is crying out for detailed and forensic questions to each of the candidates. You are right though - an hour long debate and not a word on the environment was uttered


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2020)

Jennastan said:


> And as far as I can tell most women are supportive of trans people and most men aren't.



I think most people are broadly supportive of trans people insofar as respecting their right to live as they please (with the only caveat being where that might impinge on others' rights).  But I think most people don't believe that trans women are literally women, even if they are willing to treat them as if they are for most purposes.  But that men are more willing to say they don't consider trans women to literally be women, as women have been socialised to please, and to defer to the opinions of others.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I am appalled and angry about Nandy's comments on housing a convicted male rapist in a woman's prison. Not only would it put female prisoners at risk of serious harm, it is a free gift to all the party's enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) women prisoners already at risk of serious harm, it's not like women's prisons are safe places anyway
2) this is an issue created by the conservative party and tbh it's perhaps the best thing they've ever come up with to divide people on 'the left'


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> I think most people are broadly supportive of trans people insofar as respecting their right to live as they please (with the only caveat being where that might impinge on others' rights).  But I think most people don't believe that trans women are literally women, even if they are willing to treat them as if they were for most purposes.  But that men are more willing to say so, as women have been socialised to please, and to defer to the opinions of others.



In much more practical terms, trans issues simply don't effect men in the way they effect women: if I'm in a public toilet or changing room at the lesiure centre and some 5'2", slightly feminine looking bloke calling themselves Garry walks in its of no interest or concern to me, simply because that person is no physical threat to me - however, if a 5'6" woman is in a public toilet or changing room at the lesiure centre and someone 6'5" with a _girl dick_ walks in, then that person would very definitely be a potential threat, regardless of what their name is or how they claim to identify.

Personally I'm utterly indifferent, but very few of the women I know well are - not one of them believes the _Transwomen are women _dogma, they just have no intention of getting trolled on twitter by saying so....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I am appalled and angry about Nandy's comments on housing a convicted male rapist in a woman's prison. Not only would it put female prisoners at risk of serious harm, it is a free gift to all the party's enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Some of the most shameless TERF tubthumping I've seen there. The final question is utterly shameless, how can I make the rape of children into something that gets me off the hook for defending my own shitty opinions? Eugh.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 18, 2020)

The fact that SpookyFrank has to resort to a contemptible misrepresentation of Julia Long's question is a sign that he knows how weak his own position is.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> 1) women prisoners already at risk of serious harm, it's not like women's prisons are safe places anyway
> 2) this is an issue created by the conservative party and tbh it's perhaps the best thing they've ever come up with to divide people on 'the left'


Women prisoners should not be at risk from the particular dangers inherent in sharing space with a person who remains a biological male, anatomically intact, with a record as a violent and repeated rapist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> The fact that SpookyFrank has to resort to a contemptible misrepresentation of Julia Long's question is a sign that he knows how weak his own position is.



This 'growing number' she refers to, has it by any chance grown from zero to one?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Women prisoners should not be at risk from the particular dangers inherent in sharing space with a person who remains a biological male, anatomically intact, with a record as a violent and repeated rapist.



Yes, clearly. And that's what makes it such a great straw man. Trouble is nobody on the planet seems to hold the contrary position, despite repeated insinuations that they do.

Do you believe transwomen should be left at the mercy of male rapists in a men's prison? No, I don't think for a second that you do. So, having a shred of decency, I wouldn't accuse you of believing anything of the sort.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2020)

Please, everyone, does this Labour leader thread really need to be the next trans battleground?  Do we not have enough of those already?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 18, 2020)

ska invita said:


> I can't see any of the people in this contest winning an election
> therefore may as well vote for the one that keeps the political direction on track


Yeah, why change it now?.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

kebabking said:


> In much more practical terms, trans issues simply don't effect men in the way they effect women: if I'm in a public toilet or changing room at the lesiure centre and some 5'2", slightly feminine looking bloke calling themselves Garry walks in its of no interest or concern to me, simply because that person is no physical threat to me - however, if a 5'6" woman is in a public toilet or changing room at the lesiure centre and someone 6'5" with a _girl dick_ walks in, then that person would very definitely be a potential threat, regardless of what their name is or how they claim to identify.
> 
> Personally I'm utterly indifferent, but very few of the women I know well are - not one of them believes the _Transwomen are women _dogma, they just have no intention of getting trolled on twitter by saying so....



No idea if it's true but the point jennastan made was that women are largely supportive while men less so, not other way around.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In passing, I've noticed - in this piece and others - that the guardian have stopped referring to him as 'Sir'.  Though, TBF, his name hasn't yet shrunk as much as that of The Right Honourable Lord Stansgate, Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn.


----------



## oryx (Feb 18, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Please, everyone, does this Labour leader thread really need to be the next trans battleground?  Do we not have enough of those already?


You've said exactly what I was going to say.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> As it happens, you only get waitrose at service stations in the south. Think they've got one at a services near Stoke but never seen one further north that that.


The new social democracy will rise from a full tank, a Gregg's vegan sausage roll and some barbeque briquettes.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 18, 2020)

oryx said:


> You've said exactly what I was going to say.


Agreed, though it is interesting that the issue has become so prominent in the Labour election, as it seems to be elsewhere on the 'left'. I was at a small local meeting* a couple of days ago - won't say where/what as the speaker is quite well known and I'd be betraying confidences. The discussion was on local organising though, somehow, the discussion turned to 'trans v terf'. Within, literally, 2 minutes, people who hadn't met each other before were threatening to walk out if a particular line on self ID was repeated. Depressing.

Edit - * not actually an LP meeting.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 18, 2020)

Wilf said:


> In passing, I've noticed - in this piece and others - that the guardian have stopped referring to him as 'Sir'.  Though, TBF, his name hasn't yet shrunk as much as that of The Right Honourable Lord Stansgate, Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn.



Ah, glad you’ve picked up on this. I’ve noticed the managed packaging of ‘Kier’ by the Guardian too. If I get the time I might start a new thread by linking these snippets to try to show how it’s being done and the form of politics and ideas it represents.

Mind you their support has a practical dimension too. Toynbee actually had the brass neck to write an article about her phone banking for Starmer and present it as analysis.....









						Keir Starmer has what it takes to be Labour leader, but some are unconvinced | Polly Toynbee
					

After a day on the frontrunner’s phonebank talking to members, it is clear how much is at stake in this contest, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Women prisoners should not be at risk from the particular dangers inherent in sharing space with a person who remains a biological male, anatomically intact, with a record as a violent and repeated rapist.


i think what you're getting at (i haven't been able to listen to the video being at work and that) is that the prison service should follow their own procedures, if you're talking about karen white. this hasn't been hidden, but reported in a well-known national newspaper


----------



## Sue (Feb 18, 2020)

As sure as eggs are eggs, if Polly's backing someone, they're going to be godawful. So not a huge surprise really.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> No idea if it's true but the point jennastan made was that women are largely supportive while men less so, not other way around.



I know - and like Athos, I actually think it's the other way around.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> As it happens, you only get waitrose at service stations in the south. Think they've got one at a services near Stoke but never seen one further north that that.


There's one at Sandbach go past it in occasions


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> There's one at Sandbach go past it in occasions



Would be sandbach wouldn't it


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I know - and like Athos, I actually think it's the other way around.



Fair enough, read to me that athos was saying men are more vocal about it because women are socialised to be passive and accepting


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fair enough, read to me that athos was saying men are more vocal about it because women are socialised to be passive and accepting



I was. kebabking has the wrong end if the stick. I've edited my post to make it clearer that I think the majority of men and the majority of women don't believe that trans women are literally women (albeit they accept their right to live as they please), but that men are more willing to express that opinion publicly.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Feb 18, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> There's one at Sandbach go past it in occasions


Charnock Richard (Preston) and Hartshead Moor (Huddersfield) are the furthest north motorway services with a Waitrose in England; Gretna services just over the Scottish border has one too.


----------



## killer b (Feb 18, 2020)

PursuedByBears said:


> Charnock Richard (Preston) and Hartshead Moor (Huddersfield) are the furthest north motorway services with a Waitrose in England; Gretna services just over the Scottish border has one too.


I have this mental map in my head too.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Feb 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> I have this mental map in my head too.


I used to drive on these roads a lot


----------



## killer b (Feb 18, 2020)

Unless your route happens to take you via Gloucester or Tebay, it's the best way to judge which services is likely to be able to sort you out.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> Unless your route happens to take you via Gloucester or Tebay, it's the best way to judge which services is likely to be able to sort you out.



Gloucester services is awful. I liked it the first time, then I went again and realised they were charging me £6 for an organic scotch egg and a bottle of water. The ones with greggs are the best.


----------



## killer b (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Gloucester services is awful. I liked it the first time, then I went again and realised they were charging me £6 for an organic scotch egg and a bottle of water. The ones with greggs are the best.


at the moto a bit further down the motorway you could spend £6 on a marks & spencer scotch egg and a bottle of water though. It's not as if gouging prices isn't the norm.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

killer b said:


> at the moto a bit further down the motorway you could spend £6 on a marks & spencer scotch egg and a bottle of water though. It's not as if gouging prices isn't the norm.



Yeah but gloucester is £££ even for services. And for some eco hippy farmshop type place, last time I was there they had no water refill station hence why I had to buy water


----------



## killer b (Feb 18, 2020)

Oh, I've never bought petrol there - just coffee and sausage rolls, which compare very favourably price-wise to all the shithole services on the rest of the motorway network, except they're actually nice things to eat and drink, and a pleasant relaxing surrounding to eat and drink them in.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Labour were polling at 20%, behind the Lib Dems  before they adopted the second referendum policy, and they were never going to be able to “out-Brexit” the Tories so yeah, labour might well have done even worse without it.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 18, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Labour were polling at 20% behind the Lib Dems  before they adopted the second referendum policy


Have to say; I don't recall that.


----------



## killer b (Feb 18, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Labour were polling at 20% behind the Lib Dems  before they adopted the second referendum policy, and they were never going to be able to “out-Brexit” the Tories so yeah, labour might well have done even worse without it.


Were you recently a member of the lib dems by any chance?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 18, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Labour were polling at 20% behind the Lib Dems  before they adopted the second referendum policy, and they were never going to be able to “out-Brexit” the Tories so yeah, labour might well have done even worse without it.



Here are 4 quick points to muse on:

1. Labour came within a few thousand votes of _being in government _in 2017 on a manifesto that promised to honour the result of the referendum. I’d argue that’s a better metric to begin from than polling around a Euro election. The experience of the last 20 years is that claims that ‘the era of two party politics are over’ are always overblown.

2. Nobody is suggesting Labour should ‘out-Brexit’ the Tories. A Labour policy of respecting the result, to enact it and to promote a social democratic future for ordinary people would have been a sensible approach.

3. There is _overwhelming _evidence that Labour’s policy on Brexit - along with Corbyn - was the main reason given by Labour voters for switching to the Tories. Labour had its worst election result since 1935. Given these facts what does it say about Waitrose Kier that the conclusion he draws from it all is that the policy was the right one?

4. Part of the problem that Corbyn had was that every time he thought a policy on Brexit had been agreed and that it was one his own side would get behind he faced anonymous briefings and demands to go further away from the 2017 position and closer to the PV position. When this point was reached even this wasn’t enough and who then continued the briefing and led the charge for full remain. Yup, it’s Waitrose Kier (his Brexit Secretary) Watson and Lady Nugee


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 18, 2020)

The Brexit backpedaling of Labour was particularly damaging for their chances with Corbyn leading - what with him being/perceived to be a Marxist, terrorist sympathiser


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

I'm fairly sure labour has never been 20% behind the libdems in the entire history of the libdems. Must be a hundred years since labour was last 20% behind the libdems predecessor


----------



## Humberto (Feb 18, 2020)

They're (Labour members) going to have to make trade-offs and accept imperfections. I don't think the pool of candidates is that bad on that basis. I'd go for Nandy if I was a member simply because I think she will take care of the basics and IMO has more chance of not being shook off course by a rabid Tory press.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm fairly sure labour has never been 20% behind the libdems in the entire history of the libdems. Must be a hundred years since labour was last 20% behind the libdems predecessor



I think the poster is getting the LDs mixed up with the Brexit Party and these results from the euros:


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 18, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Labour were polling *at* 20% behind the Lib Dems






			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> *I'm fairly sure labour has never been 20% behind the libdems in the entire history of the libdems*. Must be a hundred years since labour was last 20% behind the libdems predecessor



fakeplasticgirl 's word emphasised for accuracy 

(Not that I agree with her general point or anything, but!   )


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> fakeplasticgirl 's word emphasised for accuracy
> 
> (Not that I agree with her general point or anything, but!   )



Ah fair enough, get it now


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 18, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah but gloucester is £££ even for services. And for some eco hippy farmshop type place, *last time I was there they had no water refill station hence why I had to buy water*



Blatant derail-maintenance here  , but don't all, or nearly all, motorway service stations have the same problem??


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Labour were polling at 20% behind the Lib Dems  before they adopted the second referendum policy, and they were never going to be able to “out-Brexit” the Tories so yeah, labour might well have done even worse without it.


No they weren't - at least not in Westminster polling - at no point were Labour consistently polling behind the LDs nor were they consistently polling below 20%.
Nobody has claimed that Labour were able to, or even needed to, "'out-Brexit' the Tories" what was raised (correctly as it turned out) that while Labour leaver voters were a relatively small portion of Labour voters they were a key demographic based on their distribution in marginal seats.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 19, 2020)

And also quite safe seats in some cases, as it turned out?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm fairly sure labour has never been 20% behind the libdems in the entire history of the libdems. Must be a hundred years since labour was last 20% behind the libdems predecessor


Not 20% behind the Lib dems- 20% in the polls, which was behind the Lib Dems


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> No they weren't - at least not in Westminster polling - at no point were Labour consistently polling behind the LDs nor were they consistently polling below 20%.
> Nobody has claimed that Labour were able to, or even needed to, "'out-Brexit' the Tories" what was raised (correctly as it turned out) that while Labour leaver voters were a relatively small portion of Labour voters they were a key demographic based on their distribution in marginal seats.


This is yougov from 9-10 july


			https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/28gnxojyae/TheTimes_190710_VI_Trackers_w.pdf


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> fakeplasticgirl 's word emphasised for accuracy
> 
> (Not that I agree with her general point or anything, but!   )


My bad phrasing sorry


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2020)

Humberto said:


> They're (Labour members) going to have to make trade-offs and accept imperfections. I don't think the pool of candidates is that bad on that basis. I'd go for Nandy if I was a member simply because I think she will take care of the basics and IMO has more chance of not being shook off course by a rabid Tory press.


Any party which has selected the likes of Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock and Jeremy Corbyn as leaders has shown they are willing to accept imperfections


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Here are 4 quick points to muse on:
> 
> 1. Labour came within a few thousand votes of _being in government _in 2017 on a manifesto that promised to honour the result of the referendum. I’d argue that’s a better metric to begin from than polling around a Euro election. The experience of the last 20 years is that claims that ‘the era of two party politics are over’ are always overblown.
> 
> ...



The context had completely changed between 17 and 2019. A second ref was a fringe position in ‘17. Peoples vote campaign wasn’t even set up til April ‘18. Whereas in ‘19 remainers (who made up 70% of Labour’s ‘17 vote) had seen the chaos and impending threat of no deal and overwhelmingly backed a second referendum.

There were also other huge differences between 17 and ‘19. Much stronger Tory leader, no dementia tax, Labour manifesto that promised more outlandish spending in addition to the much bigger threat from the Lib Dems.

Thought this thread was interesting: 

Also the stats show that the main reason for people turning from Labour to the Tories was Corbyn, not Labour’s Brexit policy.



Finally, Keir Starmer is currently polling 15 points ahead of RLB amongst LEAVE voters.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Not 20% behind the Lib dems- 20% in the polls, which was behind the Lib Dems



Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood


My bad - I was typing fast and missed out a comma 😱


killer b said:


> Were you recently a member of the lib dems by any chance?


No 🤢


----------



## kabbes (Feb 19, 2020)

As written, the sentence did mean Labour were 20 points behind.  It should have had a comma, thus:

“Labour were polling at 20%*,* behind the Lib Dems”


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

kabbes said:


> As written, the sentence did mean Labour were 20 points behind.  It should have had a comma, thus:
> 
> “Labour were polling at 20%*,* behind the Lib Dems”


I just said that.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I just said that.


Whilst I was typing, indeed.


----------



## killer b (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> My bad - I was typing fast and missed out a comma 😱
> 
> No 🤢


It looked like youd taken one of their bar charts at face value


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

killer b said:


> It looked like youd taken one of their bar charts at face value


Hahahahah


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> The context had completely changed between 17 and 2019. A second ref was a fringe position in ‘17. Peoples vote campaign wasn’t even set up til April ‘18. Whereas in ‘19 remainers (who made up 70% of Labour’s ‘17 vote) had seen the chaos and impending threat of no deal and overwhelmingly backed a second referendum.
> 
> There were also other huge differences between 17 and ‘19. Much stronger Tory leader, no dementia tax, Labour manifesto that promised more outlandish spending in addition to the much bigger threat from the Lib Dems.
> 
> ...




Where is the Starmer ahead with Leave voters stat from?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> The context had completely changed between 17 and 2019. A second ref was a fringe position in ‘17. Peoples vote campaign wasn’t even set up til April ‘18. Whereas in ‘19 remainers (who made up 70% of Labour’s ‘17 vote) had seen the chaos and impending threat of no deal and overwhelmingly backed a second referendum.
> 
> There were also other huge differences between 17 and ‘19. Much stronger Tory leader, no dementia tax, Labour manifesto that promised more outlandish spending in addition to the much bigger threat from the Lib Dems.
> 
> ...



That thread is nuts - 90% of the seats labour lost were leave seats. To claim that they were lost because labour wasn't remain enough is head/sand nonsense. And labour can count those seats gone for a long long time if they continue down that path. I mean the basic mis-understanding of what votes count and where rather than national cumulative totals is bad enough, but the political relationship it reveals is horrendous.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Where is the Starmer ahead with Leave voters stat from?


Ipso mori
Here’s the article: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...1/ipsos_mori_political_pulse_january_2020.pdf
And here’s a summary for ease: 

butchersapron


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> That thread is nuts - 90% of the seats labour lost were leave seats. To claim that they were lost because labour wasn't remain enough is head/sand nonsense. And labour can count those seats gone for a long long time if they continue down that path. I mean the basic mis-understanding of what votes count and where rather than national cumulative totals is bad enough, but the political relationship it reveals is horrendous.


I didn’t say they were lost because Labour were not remain enough - I said the narrative that Labour lost the election because it supported a second referendum isn’t supported by the evidence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 19, 2020)

'Leave seats' again. Because in any given town people people either all voted leave or all voted remain. And that vote is now both an immutable part of their character and the sole cause of all their future actions. 

It's not just the right that has conspired to make everything about brexit, the left with this level of 'analysis' has matched them at every turn. I can't believe it's now me saying this, but have we all forgotten about class as the underlying dynamic here?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I didn’t say they were lost because Labour were not remain enough - I said the narrative that Labour lost the election because it supported a second referendum is wrong.


I was talking about that thread that you recommended as used as support which says:



> So the fall in support was primarily being driven by Labour not being Remain enough, and not because Leavers thought it was too supportive of Remain



It then fails utterly to dis-aggregate this support/loss of support or where/how much electoral weight each group held beyond saying that those 90% of seat that labour lost in leave voting areas were areas in which leave wasn't really politically important and had little or nothing to do with the vote. Only remain voters in electorally insignificant seats labour could never win have the privilege of being recognised as voting for what they believed in. Those clever clever people.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

Fair enough re that criticism.

Most 2017 Labour voters in leave seats were Remainers. And Labour still hung onto 2/3rds of their leave vote. Had Labour betrayed their large majority remain support the consequences might have been much worse.

All I’m saying is I don’t believe that the second referendum policy / Keir Starmer cost Labour the election. Labour were fucked! Starmer has much higher ratings amongst leave voters than RLB does for example - if he’s seen as the architect of remain why is that?

anyway, suppose I should do some work today and stop the Keir- shilling.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Fair enough re that criticism.
> 
> Most 2017 Labour voters in leave seats were Remainers. And Labour still hung onto 2/3rds of their leave vote. Had Labour betrayed their large majority remain support the consequences might have been much worse.
> 
> ...


You're extrapolating from national labour remain support to those 90% of seats lost that voted leave there aren't you? Unless you have seen data that shows the majority of labour voters in labour-held seats that they lost in 2019 were remain voters - which would be remarkable if true.

It did cost those seats and those seats cost the election.

Have you a link to this Sir Starmer more popular amongst leave voters than RLB?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> You're extrapolating from national labour remain support to those 90% of seats lost that voted leave there aren't you? Unless you have seen data that shows the majority of labour voters in labour-held seats that they lost in 2019 were remain voters - which would be remarkable if true.
> 
> It did cost those seats and those seats cost the election.
> 
> Have you a link to this Sir Starmer more popular amongst leave voters than RLB?


I’m not extrapolating:




__





						Labour’s electoral dilemma - The British Election Study
					






					www.britishelectionstudy.com
				




The ipsomori poll which has starmer 15 points higher than RLB is posted above


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m not extrapolating:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok that's for labour's share of the 400 odd seats that voted leave that they won - that's 61% of labour 262  seats in 2017. So it's across all 130 seats, not that 52 of the 60 that they lost who voted leave - and they likely lost them because that figure of 60% of labour voters in leave seats voting remain is topped up by seats where the electoral arithmetic didn't mean that a reasonable sized swing/high support for leave as a voting motivation meant losing the seat. It's again doing that national cumulative total rather than specific important seats/voters.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Ipso mori
> Here’s the article: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...1/ipsos_mori_political_pulse_january_2020.pdf
> And here’s a summary for ease:
> 
> butchersapron



That says that he is a) more favourable to remain voters across all areas - not labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election. b) He is disliked - as they all are - across all leave voters. Not  labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> That says that he is a) more favourable to remain voters across all areas - not labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election. b) He is disliked - as they all are - across all leave voters. Not  labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election.


I only said he was 15 (actually 16) points ahead of Rlb amongst leave voters. I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that that was amongst labour leave voters.
KS is -15 and RLB is - 31


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Ok that's for labour's share of the 400 odd seats that voted leave that they won - that's 61% of labour 262  seats in 2017. So it's across all 130 seats, not that 52 of the 60 that they lost who voted leave - and they likely lost them because that figure of 60% of labour voters in leave seats voting remain is topped up by seats where the electoral arithmetic didn't mean that a reasonable sized swing/high support for leave as a voting motivation meant losing the seat. It's again doing that national cumulative total rather than specific important seats/voters.


yes Labour backing a second referendum would’ve alienated some of the significant Leave minority in these seats.
But Labour not backing a second referendum would’ve alienated a section of Remainers in these Leave seats, and the national picture of Labour losing vote % to the Lib Dems would’ve been seen in these Leave seats too, albeit not quite as dramatically.
And since there were still more Labour Remainers than Leavers even in these strong Leave seats, this would’ve made things at least as bad here and - crucially - it would’ve lost more seats down south and in London.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 19, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Leave seats' again. Because in any given town people people either all voted leave or all voted remain. And that vote is now both an immutable part of their character and the sole cause of all their future actions.
> 
> It's not just the right that has conspired to make everything about brexit, the left with this level of 'analysis' has matched them at every turn. I can't believe it's now me saying this, but have we all forgotten about class as the underlying dynamic here?


Yeah but airport queues
Austerity and racism began in 2016
To everything Breturn, turn, turn


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> yes Labour backing a second referendum would’ve alienated some of the significant Leave minority in these seats.
> But Labour not backing a second referendum would’ve alienated a section of Remainers in these Leave seats, and the national picture of Labour losing vote % to the Lib Dems would’ve been seen in these Leave seats too, albeit not quite as dramatically.
> And since there were still more Labour Remainers than Leavers even in these strong Leave seats, this would’ve made things at least as bad here and - crucially - it would’ve lost more seats down south and in London.



We do not know that labour Leave voters were minorities in these 90% (52 seats) of seats that labour lost that voted leave. We have only the average across the 130 seats (60% remain) - and given that there is one thing common across nearly every single single one of those _lost_ seats i'm pretty sure that figures there were higher than those they didn't lose.

What seats would the labour party have lost to the lib-dems if they hadnb't backtracked on brexit? Do they add up to at least 60? And if they were to lose them by keeping the same brexit platform that they won them on in 2017 why would they lose them in 2019?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I only said he was 15 points ahead of Rlb amongst leave voters. I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that that was amongst labour leave voters.
> KS is -15 and RLB is - 31
> View attachment 199064


For those who may not have looked at the pdf, the sections across the top are unfav, neither, DK, fav.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Not 20% behind the Lib dems- 20% in the polls, which was behind the Lib Dems



Just needed a comma: "Labour were polling *at* 20%, behind the Lib Dems" 

Eta: came late to the party


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> For those who may not have looked at the pdf, the sections across the top are unfav, neither, DK, fav.



It’s not masses to go on for sure. Possibly there are two different messages about Labour’s defeat that are played out here. That the cohort Labour lost appear to want less economic liberalism, but also (very broadly) more cultural conservatism. The latter could now be a greater issue for Labour immediately following Corbyn’s annihilation, making man who looks like a proper politician in a drama seem like the standout proper politician. But after five years of the Tories flooding the country with the whole world’s capital and life unchanged in those towns, what sort of Labour alternative will make sense then?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Just needed a comma: "Labour were polling *at* 20%, behind the Lib Dems"
> 
> Eta: came late to the party


So embarrassed by this


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> We do not know that labour Leave voters were minorities in these 90% (52 seats) of seats that labour lost that voted leave. We have only the average across the 130 seats (60% remain) - and given that there is one thing common across nearly every single single one of those _lost_ seats i'm pretty sure that figures there were higher than those they didn't lose.
> 
> What seats would the labour party have lost to the lib-dems if they hadnb't backtracked on brexit? Do they add up to at least 60? And if they were to lose them by keeping the same brexit platform that they won them on in 2017 why would they lose them in 2019?


“I’m pretty sure” - but aren’t you guessing then too? 
From the data we have - we _know_ that even in _strong_ Leave seats (with a Leave vote of >60%), Labour voters were about 60% Remain. So therefore it's highly likely that this trend held in the seats Labour lost, particularly since a lot of the seats Labour lost weren't strong Leave seats.

Sure - labour wouldn’t have lost 60 seats to the Lib Dems - but that doesn’t matter - as Labour would've lost plenty of these Leave seats even by backing Brexit - voters turned against Labour for far more reasons than just Brexit (Corbyn being the main one if you look at the stats) and many would've been lost by a swing nationally against Labour.

I just don’t see - going on the data we have at the minute - how we can come to the conclusion that Keir Starmer, who incidentally is the only one at the minute with a positive favourability rating, is the disaster for the Labour Party that people here are making out.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> “I’m pretty sure” - but aren’t you guessing then too?
> From the data we have - we _know_ that even in _strong_ Leave seats (with a Leave vote of >60%), Labour voters were about 60% Remain. So therefore it's highly likely that this trend held in the seats Labour lost, particularly since a lot of the seats Labour lost weren't strong Leave seats.
> 
> Sure - labour wouldn’t have lost 60 seats to the Lib Dems - but that doesn’t matter - as Labour would've lost plenty of these Leave seats even by backing Brexit - voters turned against Labour for far more reasons than just Brexit (Corbyn being the main one if you look at the stats) and many would've been lost by a swing nationally against Labour.
> ...


There are no exact figures = what there is is near universal commonality across the seats that labour actualy lost.

If they're not going to lose seats to the lib-dems with a remain backlash then who are they going to lose them to? There isn't anyone else. And they didn't need to back brexit, they just needed not to change the 2017 platform - why would they have lost those seats in 2019 on the same platform as they won them on in 2017 - why would there be a remain backlash costing them seats in leave areas. And why is this leadership voting-motivation separated off from brexit and the change in the labour platform over it? That's exactly one of the reasons that leads to a negative view of the leadership - changing to a second referendum position. This isn't a distinct thing, it's surely part and parcel of the same thing in those lost seats.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> There are no exact figures = what there is is near universal commonality across the seats that labour actualy lost.
> 
> If they're not going to lose seats to the lib-dems with a remain backlash then who are they going to lose them to? There isn't anyone else. And they didn't need to back brexit, they just needed not to change the 2017 platform - why would they have lost those seats in 2019 on the same platform as they won them on in 2017 - why would there be a remain backlash costing them seats in leave areas. And why is this leadership voting-motivation separated off from brexit and the change in the labour platform over it? That's exactly one of the reasons that leads to a negative view of the leadership - changing to a second referendum position. This isn't a distinct thing, it's surely part and parcel of the same thing in those lost seats.


I said they wouldn’t lose 60 seats - not that they wouldn’t lose any. 
as I said in an earlier post, 2017/19 are not comparable: 2017 had Theresa may, dementia tax,  and the chaos and threat of no deal wasn’t present then either.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 19, 2020)

These sixty things are on fire, shall we use water or more fire


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

On a semi-unrelated note: KS is the only leadership candidate who currently has a positive rating amongst the over 55s - the exact demographic labour need to win back!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 19, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> These sixty things are on fire, shall we use water or more fire


Well, what does one famously fight fire with?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 19, 2020)

Anyway popularity of candidates now is irrelevant. Starmer is being treated well in press, looks & sounds like a politician, has a posh chin (I don't care his mum was a nurse of whatever) which probably explains why he is less unpopular (not more popular) than others when people are pushed to make a choice. It says nothing about prospects for labour in elections. Would starmer's politics be attractive to those voters it needs to attract, I think everybody here knows the answer to that


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> On a semi-unrelated note: KS is the only leadership candidate who currently has a positive rating amongst the over 55s - the exact demographic labour need to win back!
> 
> View attachment 199077



No, you’ve lost me now. Speaking as one of them, fuck them.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I said they wouldn’t lose 60 seats - not that they wouldn’t lose any.
> as I said in an earlier post, 2017/19 are not comparable: 2017 had Theresa may, dementia tax,  and the chaos and threat of no deal wasn’t present then either.


You said it would have been worse if they didn't go the  second referendum route didn't you? I'm asking how. They wouldn't lose seats to lib-dems or Tories if there was a remain backlash. But why would there be one if the policy wasn't changed anyway.

How did the no deal nonsense effect the vote?

Have you an explanation for why 52 from 60 lost seats were leave? Luck?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

So - who’s everyone voting for then?! 

I’m undecided 😜


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> You said it would have been worse if they didn't go the  second referendum route didn't you? I'm asking how. They wouldn't lose seats to lib-dems or Tories if there was a remain backlash. But why would there be one if the policy wasn't changed anyway.
> 
> How did the no deal nonsense effect the vote?
> 
> Have you an explanation for why 52 from 60 lost seats were leave?


I already tried to explain this - essentially they’d have lost more ground to the Lib Dems- not 60 seats I’m sure, but labour were polling at 20% before the second referendum policy and only then did they manage to claw their way back up - and they’d still have lost to the tories in the “red wall” because Corbyn was universally loathed there and to the extent Brexit was a factor they couldn’t out-Brexit BoZo anyway.
edit - and the article I sent which showed that the majority of labour supporters in leave seats backed remain.


----------



## andysays (Feb 19, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Well, what does one famously fight fire with?


You use a different coloured fire extinguisher depending on the source of the fire, but I can never remember which colour is which.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2020)

andysays said:


> You use a different coloured fire extinguisher depending on the source of the fire, but I can never remember which colour is which.



Water goes well with electrics I believe, but then I have no eyebrows so make of it what you will.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> So - who’s everyone voting for then?!
> 
> I’m undecided 😜




I'll be voting either for hopeless (RLB) or clueless (Nandy). I'll be voting Rayner for Deputy. I've explained my reasoning for both decisions on this thread.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 19, 2020)

Brexit will be done and dusted by the next election anyway, pointless going over it. It's about who can lead the labour party going forward.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I already tried to explain this - essentially they’d have lost more ground to the Lib Dems- not 60 seats I’m sure, but labour were polling at 20% before the second referendum policy and only then did they manage to claw their way back up - and they’d still have lost to the tories in the “red wall” because Corbyn was universally loathed there and to the extent Brexit was a factor they couldn’t out-Brexit BoZo anyway.
> edit - and the article I sent which showed that the majority of labour supporters in leave seats backed remain.


You keep referring to one poll finding from one pollster as though it somehow represents the whole polling picture; it really doesn't. Even at their lowest ebb, (just after the 2019 GE was called), the LP was always polling substantially higher figures than the LDs in aggregated ("poll of polls") polling. As the campaign went on the gap between the two parties widened:



Not sure what it adds to your argument to continue insisting that the LDs were out polling the LP; they weren't and never did.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

brogdale said:


> You keep referring to one poll finding from one pollster as though it somehow represents the whole polling picture; it really doesn't. Even at their lowest ebb, (just after the 2019 GE was called), the LP was always polling substantially higher figures than the LDs in aggregated ("poll of polls") polling. As the campaign went on the gap between the two parties widened:
> 
> View attachment 199082
> 
> Not sure what it adds to your argument to continue insisting that the LDs were out polling the LP; they weren't and never did.


But that’s from November which was AFTER labour announced their second referendum policy in all circumstances thing - which kind of proves my point. The poll I shared was from the beginning of July - ie beforehand.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 19, 2020)

True. Who do you think is best?
Edit: meant to quote sleaterkinney


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> But that’s from November which was AFTER labour announced their second referendum policy in all circumstances thing - which kind of proves my point. The poll I shared was from the beginning of July - ie beforehand.


No, I don't think so.
Even on a longer time-frame, it's not at all obvious what effect (if any) the July decision to adopt a 2nd Ref position had on polling, tbh. If anything, the period over the summer up to the GE saw the LP's poll share as pretty static:


----------



## killer b (Feb 19, 2020)

Stephen Bush's article in the Staggers today addresses some of this, on the anniversary of the formation of TIG - I more or less agree with him.









						The Independent Group ended in failure, but they changed British politics
					

Their biggest impact was in forcing Labour to change its Brexit policy.




					www.newstatesman.com


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2020)

brogdale said:


> No, I don't think so.
> Even on a longer time-frame, it's not at all obvious what effect (if any) the July decision to adopt a 2nd Ref position had on polling, tbh. If anything, the period over the summer up to the GE saw the LP's poll share as pretty static:
> 
> View attachment 199085



Yeah, I don't think it's worth getting hung up on this or that date or announcement - I wasn't particularly aware of it, and compared to most people I'm a political nerd - what mattered was the very obvious direction of travel. In 2017 Labour accepted brexit, in 2019 it didn't.

The Thornberrys', Starmers' and McDonnells' (remarkably, in his case) of this world were responsible for pushing that, and Corbyn was responsible for not pushing back.

That's what the voters saw - among other things they didn't like - and that's what they reacted to.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> This is yougov from 9-10 july
> 
> 
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/28gnxojyae/TheTimes_190710_VI_Trackers_w.pdf


That is a single poll in the aftermath of the EU elections - as I said there was not point at which Labour were *consistently* polling behind the LDs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> True. Who do you think is best?
> Edit: meant to quote sleaterkinney


Starmer/Rayner

RLB will just be the same non-entities in the shadow cabinet, muddled policies from the advisors and zombie 80s left talking points.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2020)

Nandy for me - don't agree with a large slice of what she says, but she's a decent communicator, and has the intellectual curiosity to at least stand a chance of working Labour out of its current malaise. Some direction being better than none at this stage...

Starmer just comes across as _meh - _he comes on the radio and I just hear the voice from Charlie Brown: wah wah wah, wah wah wah...

Long Bailey is just hopeless. For all her _prolier-than-thou _bollocks she seems utterly divorced from anyone who doesn't get all shrieky on Twitter - and she's just unutterably shit at every thing she does: no backbone whatsoever, and Chris Grayling levels of basic competence.

Thornberry: voter repellent.


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> - and she's just unutterably shit at every thing she does: no backbone whatsoever, and Chris Grayling levels of basic competence.



what evidence do you have for this?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Nandy for me - don't agree with a large slice of what she says, but she's a decent communicator, and has the intellectual curiosity to at least stand a chance of working Labour out of its current malaise. Some direction being better than none at this stage...
> 
> Starmer just comes across as _meh - _he comes on the radio and I just hear the voice from Charlie Brown: wah wah wah, wah wah wah...
> 
> ...


All that Nandy will achieve is to ensure that (if he doesn't win on 1st round) Starmer will take the second with 90% of her 2nd prefs going to Sir Kia.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2020)

oryx said:


> what evidence do you have for this?



Everything I've seen, heard, and read?

I started off thinking she might be at least part of the answer - right background, right accent, right end of the party, but she's taken on the worst aspects of the Corbyn era and proven to be a wooden charisma bypass. Her campaign has been appalling - which bodes less than well for a GE - she's just crap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Starmer just comes across as _meh - _he comes on the radio and I just hear the voice from Charlie Brown: wah wah wah, wah wah wah...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Long Bailey is just hopeless. For all her _prolier-than-thou _bollocks she seems utterly divorced from anyone who doesn't get all shrieky on Twitter - and she's just unutterably shit at every thing she does: no backbone whatsoever, and Chris Grayling levels of basic competence.



While I'm no fan of Long-Bailey, she doesn't come close to Grayling levels of failure. Few mortals ever have.


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Everything I've seen, heard, and read?



But _what_, specifically?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2020)

oryx said:


> But _what_, specifically?


perhaps kebabking has this interview in mind


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps kebabking has this interview in mind


No dog in the fight, but have to say that interview reflects more upon the party's campaign/media team than RLB herself. She'd clearly been told not to reveal key 2017 manifesto commitments, so it's hard to see why her handlers took the interview in the first place. Not her finest hour, but I don't actually see it as a 'car-crash' for her, personally.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 19, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> So embarrassed by this



Just call them pedants, works for me


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Nandy for me - don't agree with a large slice of what she says, but she's a decent communicator, and has the intellectual curiosity to at least stand a chance of working Labour out of its current malaise. Some direction being better than none at this stage...
> 
> Starmer just comes across as _meh - _he comes on the radio and I just hear the voice from Charlie Brown: wah wah wah, wah wah wah...
> 
> ...



Nandy has done some pretty serious leveraging of the Party position, _it must change, it took people voting for Boris to make us see the need for change._ Given that she is someone of the soft left at best and has been largely unclear about that change, it’s quite a gamble to assume that change isn’t going involve some uncomfortable retreats. Tell me otherwise as I’m unconvinced by any of them and happy to hear the positive about any of them.


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps kebabking has this interview in mind


That's nearly three years old! It's not a great interview but that's mainly because she is being made to appear evasive as she doesn't want to leak details of the manifesto.

Any (preferably more recent) evidence of Grayling levels of incompetence, kebabking ?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Nandy has done some pretty serious leveraging of the Party position, _it must change, it took people voting for Boris to make us see the need for change._ Given that she is someone of the soft left at best and has been largely unclear about that change, it’s quite a gamble to assume that change isn’t going involve some uncomfortable retreats. Tell me otherwise as I’m unconvinced by any of them and happy to hear the positive about any of them.



The GE and how it effects the LP's, and the lefts' generally, ability to mitigate government legislation and policy was a fairly _uncomfortable retreat,_ I'd take the view that that reality is the big, hard truth, and that accepting the loss of words on a piece of paper that aren't going to be implemented is rather small beer compared to that.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2020)

oryx said:


> ..Any (preferably more recent) evidence of Grayling levels of incompetence, kebabking ?



I apologise without reservation or sincerity if my previous answer of _everything she says and does _doesn't satisfy the Commissar for Thought.

I dislike her more every time I watch, read or hear her, she appears to have no real ideas of her own - something she shares with Starmer and Thornberry - and given how she was placed at the beginning of this campaign: the Corbyn Candidate, the immediate backing she got from Unite etc.. her progress has been fucking woeful.

You won't like any further answers I might give you, so you'd be best off finding a 'maybe' voter to turn off....


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I apologise without reservation or sincerity if my previous answer of _everything she says and does _doesn't satisfy the Commissar for Thought.
> 
> I dislike her more every time I watch, read or hear her, she appears to have no real ideas of her own - something she shares with Starmer and Thornberry - and given how she was placed at the beginning of this campaign: the Corbyn Candidate, the immediate backing she got from Unite etc.. her progress has been fucking woeful.
> 
> You won't like any further answers I might give you, so you'd be best off finding a 'maybe' voter to turn off....


So no evidence then.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Nandy for me - don't agree with a large slice of what she says, but she's a decent communicator...



_Well the food was terrible, but the plates it came on were lovely. Five stars._

Mental.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2020)

oryx said:


> So no evidence then.



More than enough for me - you do understand how politics works don't you? 

You do know that I don't have to submit a referenced thesis to some random on the internet for permission to not rate their chosen candidate?

If you're interested, I don't know one person who has a vote in the leadership election who's enthusiasm for RLB has grown during the campaign. Lots will still vote for rather than the others, but no one I know is saying 'shes better than I thought she'd be....'.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> The GE and how it effects the LP's, and the lefts' generally, ability to mitigate government legislation and policy was a fairly _uncomfortable retreat,_ I'd take the view that that reality is the big, hard truth, and that accepting the loss of words on a piece of paper that aren't going to be implemented is rather small beer compared to that.



I’m no purity obsessive, but it’s fair enough that Labour’s next iteration cannot be a Blair reboot, neither morally nor tactically. However the landing strip between competence and extremism is painfully thin for Labour in a way it’s not for the Tories. Good luck finding it.

I still believe whoever is the leader needs to be on a strict probation and if they are not gaining traction they should reboot in 2-3 years when it may be clearer what bs the next election will be fought on.


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> More than enough for me - you do understand how politics works don't you?
> 
> You do know that I don't have to submit a referenced thesis to some random on the internet for permission to not rate their chosen candidate?
> 
> If you're interested, I don't know one person who has a vote in the leadership election who's enthusiasm for RLB has grown during the campaign. Lots will still vote for rather than the others, but no one I know is saying 'shes better than I thought she'd be....'.


Not asking for a referenced thesis and I can't think how you got that idea.

If you make an assertion like RLB being as competent as Grayling you should be able to back it up not just reference your own feelings and dislikes


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> - you do understand how politics works don't you?


Yeah and one cardinal principle is that if you don't back up assertions you're going to get scrutinised ..


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> You do know that I don't have to submit a referenced thesis to some random on the internet for permission to not rate their chosen candidate?


No, but you are posting on a political discussion board. It's hardly unreasonable for you to be asked you to actually support your position with_ some_ reasoning. If you can't be arsed/don't want/are unable to give it fine but oryx is making a perfectly fair point.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2020)

kebabking said:


> More than enough for me - you do understand how politics works don't you?
> 
> You do know that I don't have to submit a referenced thesis to some random on the internet for permission to not rate their chosen candidate?
> 
> If you're interested, I don't know one person who has a vote in the leadership election who's enthusiasm for RLB has grown during the campaign. Lots will still vote for rather than the others, but no one I know is saying 'shes better than I thought she'd be....'.


I think it was, perhaps, the use of the phrase 'basic competence' that's at issue. Whilst I accept that perception is all in politics, and it could be argued that giving an impression of credibility is a basic political competence, it's the Grayling comparison that begs explanation. He not only came over as an incompetent, but also established an impressively consistent record of professional failure. Though I agree that RLB has not commanded confidence with her public outings I'm not at all sure why you'd think she was incompetent in her professional role as a front-bench politician.

Unless you are aware that she's responsible for some actual fuck-ups, the Grayling comparison looks a tad harsh, tbh.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 19, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Unless you are aware that she's responsible for some actual fuck-ups, the Grayling comparison looks a tad harsh, tbh.



I agree with this, she's nowhere near as bad as Grayling, and it's virtually impossible that she could be anywhere near as spectacularly useless as that walking fuck-up ....

But you're right that for a lot, RLB is a hard candidate to warm to, at all.

I think it was oryx (pages ago) who floated the idea that she could be a good Shadow Chancellor. I think she'd actually be competent, even better, at a details-and-figures job like that, even a highly important job like that.

But as a leader? I don't get the attraction at all.

<apologies for not discussing actual policies here  , but it's late ... >


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2020)

Telegraph, and all that...but...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 19, 2020)

Not trying to stir the pot here but unite didn't immediately come out for long bailey, in fact they took their time, long after unison had gone for sir posh chin and GMB had gone lisa miliband


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 19, 2020)

Ed Miliband could, dare I say it, be very good at Environment-related stuff (IMO) 

They'd better not bring back his brother though


----------



## two sheds (Feb 19, 2020)

We need someone with the incisive logic of Useless Eustace as Shadow Environment Secretary though









						WATCH: Tory confirms Dominic Cummings is in charge in humiliating interview
					

A TORY MP has confirmed Dominic Cummings is in charge of Boris Johnson's Government in an embarrassing slip of the tongue in an interview.




					www.thenational.scot
				






> George Eustice was asked about Downing Street's silence over adviser Andrew Sabisky who suggested there should be an uptake of contraception to stop unplanned pregnancies “creating a permanent underclass”.
> 
> 
> Kay Burley questioned Eustice before it was revealed Sabisky was the one who had the controversial opinions.
> When asked whether he would be comfortable with someone with those views working in Downing Street, Eustice said: "Look, I'm not going to get drawn into the comments of that individual. That's a matter for Dominic Cummings in Number 10 and I'm sure you can talk to him."


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 19, 2020)

Btw if any truth in starmer wanting to put reeves on front bench then it speaks volumes. Reeves who wants labour to be tougher on welfare than tories. Grim fucker.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 19, 2020)

_extremism_


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Btw if any truth in starmer wanting to put reeves on front bench then it speaks volumes. Reeves who wants labour to be tougher on welfare than tories. Grim fucker.


It's nearly five years old, but I'm not aware of Reeves backtracking on these views.









						Rachel Reeves says Labour does not want to represent people out of work
					

'Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people'




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 19, 2020)

Lot of people who've never had a real job seem to have a lot to say about working people, laziness, etc


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 19, 2020)

oryx said:


> It's nearly five years old, but I'm not aware of Reeves backtracking on these views.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Trying to remember if these comments were before or after she racked up a 5k debt she apparently couldn't pay back on her expenses card and got cut off


----------



## Humberto (Feb 19, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Lot of people who've never had a real job seem to have a lot to say about working people, laziness, etc



It's ideology. Self-serving, self-reassuring, demented palpable nonsense. But for all that it's driven by the ideological momentum and popularity that resulted from the sheer immovable self-worship of right-wing Libertarianism.


----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Trying to remember if these comments were before or after she racked up a 5k debt she apparently couldn't pay back on her expenses card and got cut off


I didn't know that!


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 19, 2020)

Much of the most Blairite parts of the LP, pre-Corbyn especially, have been terrible at that stuff  

But the one I've *truly* never forgiven is Nick Clegg. That Yellow Book LD scum remarked on 'alarm-clock Britain'<  x several more> and had a dig at people with their curtains shut at 10 am or something <and a few more 's!!!!! >, back in Tory Coalition days.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 19, 2020)

It's like Mick Jagger at the height of Reaganomics releasing "Let's Work"


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 20, 2020)

What would even be the point of appealing to remainers now? What can be delivered for them?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 20, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What would even be the point of appealing to remainers now? What can be delivered for them?



Fair point. Even Starmer _claims_ (  ) to be accepting defeat in that respect.

If non-fanatical and previously Remain-inclined types (eg me!) are any guide, I'll bet most of them would rather the next GE was fought on any other subject than Brexit


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 20, 2020)

What would a Remainer Labour leader do as PM if labour won the next GE? Stop Brexit?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 20, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What would a Remainer Labour leader do as PM if labour won the next GE? Stop Brexit?



There's going to be some big decisions to be made in that 2023+ timeframe, and the on-the-street outcomes of whatever Johnson does or doesn't negotiate with the EU regarding the future relationship will be clear (for good or ill), so the job is going to need a thinker and a persuader - imv Nandy is the stand out candidate in that regard - but I fully accept the view that Labour need to become far more ruthless in ditching leaders who simply don't cut the electoral mustard.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What would a Remainer Labour leader do as PM if labour won the next GE? Stop Brexit?



It depends on how Britain has fared post Brexit. If it’s made little difference to Britain’s economy and all the other relationships that went with the EU, then nothing. They can enjoy the latitude to state aid and redistribute. They may more have to concern themselves with the consequences of big flows of capital into the wrong places, like the housing market and the relationships the Tories have built with the rest of the world, the consequences for regulation etc.

If Britain is seriously suffering as a result of Brexit then you might equally ask what would a Leaver leader do? There would be several choices, to carrying on saluting as the boat goes down, while blaming the EU, to reestablish the relationships with the Single Market and EU, maybe like Norway, or to find a wholly new economic model of trade, ownership and distribution.

Rejoining the EU won’t be politically possible for a much longer span.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 20, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> If non-fanatical and previously Remain-inclined types (eg me!) are any guide, I'll bet most of them would rather the next GE was fought on any other subject than Brexit



Before we get there (and big LoL at the notion of a remainer labour leader winning a GE) it’ll be interesting to see how the tartan Tories fare in their independence referendum. It’s interesting because the offer is to leave Britain, and then make the necessary cuts to their own economy to accept the control of the EU. 

I think they’ve misread the popular impulse that lead to the Brexit vote in Scotland. In my opinion that was more a rejection of Tory England than an embrace of the EU.

And as the EU economy continues to flatline the offer of fake socialists taking orders from neo-liberals in Brussels isn’t one that will command much WC support.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2020)

Hmmm


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2020)

Yeah, listen up lefties..


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Before we get there (and big LoL at the notion of a remainer labour leader winning a GE) it’ll be interesting to see how the tartan Tories fare in their independence referendum. It’s interesting because the offer is to leave Britain, and then make the necessary cuts to their own economy to accept the control of the EU.
> 
> I think they’ve misread the popular impulse that lead to the Brexit vote in Scotland. In my opinion that was more a rejection of Tory England than an embrace of the EU.
> 
> And as the EU economy continues to flatline the offer of fake socialists taking orders from neo-liberals in Brussels isn’t one that will command much WC support.



I don’t believe it’s your intention, but this is not so far from English Nationalists’ ‘ha ha Scotland, what a joke, you can’t go it alone, you’ll be skint without us’.

Besides, it wouldn’t be beyond the EU to make it easy on Scotland to rejoin if it felt it was in its interest.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 20, 2020)

Starmer will be the next leader. 

It will be a shit show.

Tories will win the next GE.

There, thread resolved


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 20, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I don’t believe it’s your intention, but this is not so far from English Nationalists’ ‘ha ha Scotland, what a joke, you can’t go it alone, you’ll be skint without us’.
> 
> Besides, it wouldn’t be beyond the EU to make it easy on Scotland to rejoin if it felt it was in its interest.



I made 4 points in that post:

1. That the SNP are faux socialists/social democrats
2. That their position (the SNP's) is that they want a referendum and in the event of a 'Yes' vote will seek to rejoin the EU. To meet EU fiscal rules for entry they will have to reduce spending/increase productivity or both.
3. That part of the SNP calculation is that remain vote is pro-EU in character and I think that is partly true but I also think that part of it was a conscious vote against Tory England. Put another way in England a vote for _was the two fingers to the British establishment option_. In Scotland because of the presence of the SNP the reverse was the case and a remain vote was the anti-establishment vote.
4. That when the referendum is held that the dynamic described in point 3 will no longer be the case. I then went on to suggest that a future as a member state required to adhere to EU strictures will be the point of departure for many working class voters from the SNP.

How you have managed to extrapolate from that some whiff of English Nationalism or that I think Scotland is an object of amusement it is genuinely baffling. So, you'd better explain..... and it better be good or i'll need to speculate on your motives for the gratuitous insult.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 20, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Starmer will be the next leader.
> 
> It will be a shit show.
> 
> ...



Yes
Yes
Yes 

Good work.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 20, 2020)

:leonidas:


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 20, 2020)

I think one thing being missed here re: snp is that indy supporters in scotland and wales are overwhelmingly pro eu because they see the eu as their route to independence (or independence from the uk) - with off the shelf trade deals, laws, even currency etc. This is why even the fringe radical left in eg plaid are uncritical of eu.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I made 4 points in that post:
> 
> 1. That the SNP are faux socialists/social democrats
> 2. That their position (the SNP's) is that they want a referendum and in the event of a 'Yes' vote will seek to rejoin the EU. To meet EU fiscal rules for entry they will have to reduce spending/increase productivity or both.
> ...



I’ve no problem with most of your points, but you claim (in a way you wouldn’t do for the EU Leave vote) that the Scots didn’t really know what they were voting for in that referendum and would get a shock at the cost if that line was now continued. That’s parallel to English Nationalists or Unionist views on independence. You may be correct that the scenario is changed by seeking re-entry after independence, but support for those positions doesn’t appear to be waning.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 20, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’ve no problem with most of your points, but you claim (in a way you wouldn’t do for the EU Leave vote) that the Scots didn’t really know what they were voting for in that referendum and would get a shock at the cost if that line was now continued. That’s parallel to English Nationalists or Unionist views on independence. You may be correct that the scenario is changed by seeking re-entry after independence, but support for those positions doesn’t appear to be waning.



But. I didn’t claim that the Scots didn’t know what they were voting for. I claimed the opposite


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 20, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> But. I didn’t claim that the Scots didn’t know what they were voting for. I claimed the opposite



Ok, fair enough, but you claimed they were motivated by a desire to reject the English POV more than to support the EU.

Everything is contingent on circumstances. How the next few years play out. If Brexit goes ‘well’, cannot be spun as a failure, then that may count against the independence vote in the way you say. If it is a real or perceived failure then the reverse may be true and alignment may be sold as a necessary cost. Easier to do if there is already a demonstrable cost of being out. There may be another, socialist, alternative but it has a lot of ground to make up.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 20, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I think one thing being missed here re: snp is that indy supporters in scotland and wales are overwhelmingly pro eu because they see the eu as their route to independence (or independence from the uk) - with off the shelf trade deals, laws, even currency etc. This is why even the fringe radical left in eg plaid are uncritical of eu.



Related to this, find it weird and jarring how this rampant pro eu stance plays alongside the also very vocal support for catalonia and antipathy to spanish state. But there we go.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2020)

Always thought deselection would be a useful democratic process for the LP...just...maybe...not this way around?



Cue that Brecht poem [again].


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 21, 2020)

If they elect Long Bailey to be leader (which they won’t), they will still be electorally irrelevant for next decade (which is a given), but the stuff within/around the party would be, er, spicier.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 21, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Always thought deselection would be a useful democratic process for the LP...just...maybe...not this way around?
> 
> View attachment 199242
> 
> Cue that Brecht poem [again].



Even putting aside the dodgy and self-serving nature of the politics, it should be pretty clear that the Labour Party membership is about a zillion times more reflective of the Country than the Tory one and they won easily enough.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 21, 2020)

I still get angry every time the spineless media publish the opinions of that fucking cunt Blair


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2020)

> “It’s important for Labour that we’re loud and clear about our support for trans men and women. But to most people, this looks like a Labour Party that is not prepared to go out and grapple with the big issues that we face,” the leadership hopeful concluded.
> 
> 
> Noting that she had been asked about safe spaces for women and trans rights “about 70 or 80 times”, and Israel and Palestine “about 50 times”, Nandy said: “I’ve been asked once how we win back Bassetlaw. That is a problem for the Labour Party.”
> ...



Lisa Nandy on the nature of questions she is being asked at hustings, etc, its quite revealing

oh, and apparently Danny Boyle has made a film for Lisa Nandy, 6pm embargo


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 21, 2020)

treelover said:


> Lisa Nandy on the nature of questions she is being asked at hustings, etc, its quite revealing
> 
> oh, and apparently Danny Boyle has made a film for Lisa Nandy, 6pm embargo



It’s a good point she makes. It’s easy to make Labour seem obsessed by certain issues if those are all you ask it about.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 23, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, listen up lefties..
> 
> View attachment 199174



He crossed a picket line to deliver that speech. On brand as ever.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 23, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> He crossed a picket line to deliver that speech. On brand as ever.



Leopard, spots etc.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 23, 2020)

treelover said:


> oh, and apparently Danny Boyle has made a film for Lisa Nandy, 6pm embargo



link?


----------



## treelover (Feb 23, 2020)

Lisa Nandy tells Danny Boyle her step-dad's poignant last words - about Bury FC
					

EXCLUSIVE The Labour leadership hopeful said the failure of the establishment to save the club from collapse 'tells a story' about things that have been lost in Britain - and a feeling among voters that politics has become pointless




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## belboid (Feb 23, 2020)

- the actual vid. Its nearly an hour and quite boring though.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2020)

Suddenly, my old Ma's infatuation with that nice Sir Kia's lovely suit, nice tie and good, sensible hair-cut might just start to wane. This could well be a clincher for her...handmaiden to the Queen of our hearts...the people's princess...


Rebecca Long-Bailey and Princess Diana's poignant meeting thanks to raffle win


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2020)

belboid said:


> - the actual vid. Its nearly an hour and quite boring though.




It's fucking awful. The content is boring. The culture and politics that underpin it are dreadful.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 24, 2020)

Still dunno what to do. Either vote RLB and Rayner despite everything just to keep labour at least tied to challenging political consensus/neoliberalism/whatever or not bother at all. Either way in a few weeks I'm going to opt out of political fund, only thing I've made my mind up on.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Still dunno what to do. Either vote RLB and Rayner despite everything just to keep labour at least tied to challenging political consensus/neoliberalism/whatever or not bother at all. Either way in a few weeks I'm going to opt out of political fund, only thing I've made my mind up on.



I'm going to vote RLB (purely as an anti-Starmer vote and with absolutely no expectation of her. She's useless).

I'm also voting Rayner purely because of her class background and the fact that it still informs her thinking to _some extent_.

I'm hoping that as the realisation dawns on people there can be a renewed focus on community work outside of labourism and a growing interest in politics beyond the psychodrama of the Labour Party.


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2020)

Apparently, all of the candidates were asked to sign pledge cards' demanding a number of actions they would take in relation to trans rights, waving aside the merits of such cards, I am not comfortable with them close down debate, , etc, How do these pressure groups get on the agenda, etc, I would like all candidates to agree they would support the manifesto commitment to an enquiry in the benefit deaths, but i wouldn't know how to begin that process, same as what got on the ballots for discussion and voting at conference, I suggest there is a real democratic deficit going on.


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2020)

They get on the agenda by lobbying relentlessly I think, same as everyone else.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 24, 2020)

treelover said:


> I would like all candidates to agree they would support the manifesto commitment to an enquiry in the benefit deaths, but i wouldn't know how to begin that process,



disability labour would be worth contacting on this I would have thought


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 24, 2020)

Keeley (who is excellent) has gone for Starmer (who er isn’t)

on the plus side this could mean that disability/mental health/social care is more likely to get a high profile under the (inevitable) starmer leadership


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2020)

Lol @ Graeber


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Lol @ Graeber
> 
> View attachment 199667



How very anarchist of him to make decisions about where to live, work, love etc based on temporary Big State nonsense like this


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Lol @ Graeber
> 
> View attachment 199667



hahahahah


----------



## brogdale (Feb 24, 2020)

Some corkers out today...suppose it's cos the ballots drop from today?



e2a : probs should put this in the Mason thread as well?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2020)

Important info for anyone with a vote in the election to lead the dead zone for the working class:


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Lol @ Graeber
> 
> View attachment 199667


In that case bring on a Starmer victory


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2020)

treelover said:


> Apparently, all of the candidates were asked to sign pledge cards' demanding a number of actions they would take in relation to trans rights, waving aside the merits of such cards, I am not comfortable with them close down debate, , etc, How do these pressure groups get on the agenda, etc, I would like all candidates to agree they would support the manifesto commitment to an enquiry in the benefit deaths, but i wouldn't know how to begin that process, same as what got on the ballots for discussion and voting at conference, I suggest there is a real democratic deficit going on.


A good way to start that process would be for you to join the Labour Party. There is afaics no other way for you to start that process. But you won't, will you, that would mean Doing Something


----------



## LDC (Feb 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Lol @ Graeber
> 
> View attachment 199667



FFS, it's not April 1st already is it?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> A good way to start that process would be for you to join the Labour Party. There is afaics no other way for you to start that process. But you won't, will you, that would mean Doing Something



you don’t have to be like this

contact disability labour treelover. Let us know how you get on


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> A good way to start that process would be for you to join the Labour Party.



That’s the last thing he should do


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That’s the last thing he should do


So how would you suggest he begins to go about achieving his objective of getting LP leadership candidates to agree to something without his first joining the LP or an organisation affiliated to the LP?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> So how would you suggest he begins to go about achieving his objective of getting LP leadership candidates to agree to something without his first joining the LP or an organisation affiliated to the LP?



I don’t share his faith in pledge cards. Or the Labour Party.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Some corkers out today...suppose it's cos the ballots drop from today?
> 
> View attachment 199670
> 
> e2a : probs should put this in the Mason thread as well?



A tad dramatic for a contest between three individuals who agree on most things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I don’t share his faith in pledge cards. Or the Labour Party.


right. So you can't conceive of an other means by which treelover could achieve his objective. I don't endorse his objective but hope at some point the scales may yet fall from his eyes.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 25, 2020)

Starmer & Rayner - it’s got to be!


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

any polling out for deputy leader?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> any polling out for deputy leader?











						Keir Starmer beats Rebecca Long-Bailey by 63% to 37% in second YouGov poll of Labour members | YouGov
					

Angela Rayner also looks hard to beat in deputy leader race




					yougov.co.uk
				




You gov poll suggests Rayner by a mile. The poll is a month old so the lead might have narrowed and RB seems to be doing well.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

Ta


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

Further humiliation for camp Corbo then 









						Angela Rayner: Corbyn did not command respect from Labour
					

Candidate for deputy leader strongly criticises current leader and speaks about her difficult childhood




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Further humiliation for camp Corbo then



Not really. She states his leadership was weak and that his global politics were often crass and binary. 

Both statements are factually correct. Both were made as part of a much wider and deeper profile

I’d also add that a political analysis of someone based on their praise/legitimate criticism for Corbyn isn’t necessarily a sensible place to start. 

If you actually watch the 42 minute piece you’ll see everything you need to know about Rayner.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 25, 2020)

I'm voting Burgon for deputy so a good socialist will be there nagging at who ever gets to leader.


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2020)

lol


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2020)

19sixtysix said:


> I'm voting Burgon for deputy so a good socialist will be there nagging at who ever gets to leader.



Is this a joke?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 25, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Not really. She states his leadership was weak and that his global politics were often crass and binary.
> 
> Both statements are factually correct. Both were made as part of a much wider and deeper profile
> 
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 25, 2020)

Burgon will do alright you know. Don't think he'll win but a big chunk of the corbynist left are voting for him, not just the 'cranks'. I'm told he's actually better than he comes across on telly and stuff too. Not that I'd vote for him.

Still wavering on whether to use my vote at all, it makes me feel dirty all of this


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

Burgon is a crap politician, but everyone I’ve spoken to whose relatives have died under state care have all said that Burgon is the only one who understood the issues and showed that he gave a shit. 

He is clearly not cut out for any leadership role, much better as an advocate


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Burgon will do alright you know. Don't think he'll win but a big chunk of the corbynist left are voting for him, not just the 'cranks'. I'm told he's actually better than he comes across on telly and stuff too. Not that I'd vote for him.
> 
> Still wavering on whether to use my vote at all, it makes me feel dirty all of this



He came to speak to a large stewards meeting at Unite here. He went up in my estimation as a person and for his understanding of the some of the issues raised with him. I agree that a large number of those who believe in one more heave for Corbynism will vote for him. Those who believe the defeat was the solely the fault of the media/the working class/the 'right wing' are also in his camp if the meeting I attended is anything to go by.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 25, 2020)

The deputy leader is not about leading its about supporting the leader and being of good conscience to speak for the membership which is what Burgon says he will do.  I think he'll make a decent stab at it. We do not need another watson who lied on his manifesto and formed the opposition office on day one of his election.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

Sure, but who of the deputy leader candidates looks likely to do a Tom Watson?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 25, 2020)

Ian Murray


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 25, 2020)

A prize cunt and all that is wrong with scottish labour.


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2020)

Surely if Starmer wins (which he will), then Burgon (who won't) as deputy leader would hope to be a second pillar of power in the party, in the same way Watson was?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 25, 2020)

19sixtysix said:


> A prize cunt and all that is wrong with scottish labour.



Don't disagree but tbf it's a very narrow field


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 25, 2020)

Not every thinks the same way as Watson. The deputy leader has a role in supporting the leader into power not building an empire and I expect most of the current candidates to do this unlike watson. Look at deputies in the past. Watson was a disastrous exception.


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2020)

has there ever been such a substantial ideological split between the leader and the deputy in the past as Corbyn/Watson though?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

But Burgon isn’t the only deputy candidate who is unlikely to go Watson is he? I’m struggling to see the appeal of him as deputy leader


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> But Burgon isn’t the only deputy candidate who is unlikely to go Watson is he? I’m struggling to see the appeal of him as deputy leader


better than having him as leader


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

He’s too much of a liability to be given that amount of publicity.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 25, 2020)

We also have the deputy scottish leadership election. Had the leaflet from Jackie Baillie through my door. Not a single word about my enemy the tories. All about the SNP. The new labour wing still haven't realised the labour vote went to the SNP because they had ambition for the country unlike new labour who treated them as voting fodder. SNP are making mistakes but I doubt a labour government would have made much difference under the continuing austerity cuts which is why we should be fighting the tories first and foremost. Propose a decent programme as an alternative, fight the tories. Sniping at the SNP will not garner many more votes.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Feb 25, 2020)

I like Burgon's politics. I'm in the party to get my politics voiced. I think he will make a good deputy and voice for the members. The other candidates except for Ian Murray  have been not come into my radar as doing anything special. At this moment I'm going one I know and like but I will be checking out the hustings to make my final choice.


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2020)

I don't know why anyone's bothering giving it much thought tbh. It's going to be Starmer and Rayner regardless of how you vote, so do something more fruitful with your attention.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 25, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Is this a joke?



No. He didn’t add ‘and a safe pair of hands’.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

Not really relevant to the thread, but what’s Jon Ashworth up to these days?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2020)

killer b said:


> I don't know why anyone's bothering giving it much thought tbh. It's going to be Starmer and Rayner regardless of how you vote, so do something more fruitful with your attention.


Time for us to predict Starmer's first round victory %?

I'll kick off with 61%

Anyone?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Not really relevant to the thread, but what’s Jon Ashworth up to these days?







__





						LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
					

For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than to Google it for themselves.




					lmgtfy.com


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2020)

killer b said:


> I don't know why anyone's bothering giving it much thought tbh. It's going to be Starmer and Rayner regardless of how you vote, so do something more fruitful with your attention.



Agree on Rayner. But Starmer? I know he's got the bulk of the PLP and CLP nominations but RLB has got the bulk of the union nominations (I know Starmer has got Unison), Momentum and is anointed by Corby and McDonnell. I'm not sure anyone knows how the membership is likely to vote, despite what YouGov say.


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agree on Rayner. But Starmer? I know he's got the bulk of the PLP and CLP nominations but RLB has got the bulk of the union nominations (I know Starmer has got Unison), Momentum and is anointed by Corby and McDonnell. I'm not sure anyone knows how the membership is likely to vote, despite what YouGov say.


I think Yougov are pretty good on this tbf. My pwn finger in the wind has a load of bellweather leftwingers of my acquaintance who voted Corbyn the last two times going for Starmer too. I'd be amazed if he doesn't win - maybe not first round, but he'll still win, and by a healthy margin IMO.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think Yougov are pretty good on this tbf. My pwn finger in the wind has a load of bellweather leftwingers of my acquaintance who voted Corbyn the last two times going for Starmer too. I'd be amazed if he doesn't win - maybe not first round, but he'll still win, and by a healthy margin IMO.



RLB's big problem - well, apart from the obvious ones, that she's a terrible candidate and her campaign lacks any energy, was always going to be that Nandy 2nd prefs would go to Sir Kier. But I still don't feel a Starmer surge like you do. We'll see but a Starmer landslide is a depressing af.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 25, 2020)

Could nandy come second and win on second preferences? Quite a few people I know have jumped on the nandwagon!


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Could nandy come second and win on second preferences? Quite a few people I know have jumped on the nandwagon!



I’ve read reports of that


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

I would have thought RLBs problem was that she can’t simultaneously appeal to the headbangers who turn up at her hustings (such as yesterday) and pretty much anyone  else


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’ve read reports of that


Hope not... not the biggest fan of nandy. Although she’s preferable to RLB. I saw her “deal” with that headbanger yesterday - what a joke.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Although she’s preferable to RLB. I saw her “deal” with that headbanger yesterday - what a joke.



the Israeli lobby headbanger or the hang the traitors headbanger?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 25, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agree on Rayner. But Starmer? I know he's got the bulk of the PLP and CLP nominations but RLB has got the bulk of the union nominations (I know Starmer has got Unison), Momentum and is anointed by Corby and McDonnell. I'm not sure anyone knows how the membership is likely to vote, despite what YouGov say.


I don’t necessarily think starmer will win, but they both got 5 union nominations each, and going by what people have told me, momentum is split.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> the Israeli lobby headbanger or the hang the traitors headbanger?


Israeli lobby


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Israeli lobby



She could (and should) have told him to fuck off.

she didn’t because it would alienate her base. Same with the ‘Tory voting traitors’ woman.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> She could (and should) have told him to fuck off.
> 
> she didn’t because it would alienate her base. Same with the ‘Tory voting traitors’ woman.


Exactly. Pathetic.

no leadership skills whatsoever.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> She could (and should) have told him to fuck off.
> 
> she didn’t because it would alienate her base. Same with the ‘Tory voting traitors’ woman.


This one.



State of it.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 25, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> This one.
> 
> 
> 
> State of it.




Can’t tell if she want the traitors back or not?

But what does RLB do here? If she panders she looks shit to normal people; if she challenges, she looks shit to her batshit supporters


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 25, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Can’t tell if she want the traitors back or not?
> 
> But what does RLB do here? If she panders she looks shit to normal people; if she challenges, she looks shit to her batshit supporters


She had a great soundbite "Are you going to stick to your principles and forfeit power" ?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2020)

How surprising to see the Guardian leading with a headline that Brexit didn’t influence the GE. Equally shocking that they think Sir Kier Waitrose is the right man to lead Labour and win back the racist prole gammon types:










						Labour leadership: blaming 2019 defeat just on Brexit 'not honest', says Starmer at Guardian hustings – as it happened
					

Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including the EU agreeing its negotiating mandate for the post-Brexit trade talks with the UK, and the Guardian’s Labour leadership hustings in Manchester




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 25, 2020)

Love this


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 26, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> This one.
> 
> 
> 
> State of it.




that woman in the audience is a 100% legend.  I wish she was running for Labour leader.

no pasaran! Death to all Tory-voting scabs and traitors!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 26, 2020)

The Red Roar account is peak centrist dad.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> How surprising to see the Guardian leading with a headline that Brexit didn’t influence the GE. Equally shocking that they think Sir Kier Waitrose is the right man to lead Labour and win back the racist prole gammon types:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don’t polls suggest the ‘racist prole gammon types’ agree (at the moment) that he is?

This is one of the contradictions Labour has. Labour abandoned those communities, because it wasn’t sufficiently left to offer a socialist alternative. But the most volatile of those, who were able to vote Tory, are attracted to pretty mainstream things. Like a politician who looks like the archetype of a ‘proper’ politician and who doesn’t appear too threatening.

But the denial it was Brexit and the denial that it was Corbyn/leadership are pretty much as bad as each other. The seats lost are obvious and so was the negative voter reaction.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Don’t polls suggest the ‘racist prole gammon types’ agree (at the moment) that he is?
> 
> This is one of the contradictions Labour has. Labour abandoned those communities, because it wasn’t sufficiently left to offer a socialist alternative. But the most volatile of those, who were able to vote Tory, are attracted to pretty mainstream things. Like a politician who looks like the archetype of a ‘proper’ politician and who doesn’t appear too threatening.
> 
> But the denial it was Brexit and the denial that it was Corbyn/leadership are pretty much as bad as each other. The seats lost are obvious and so was the negative voter reaction.



No. The polls reveal he’s less unpopular than Nandy and RLB. That’s hardly a massive achievement. I agree that looking the part is important by the way. Something the middle class left constantly overlook. 

But it’ll only take him so far. It’s also the case that most people, unless political hacks, have only formed a liminal view of any of the candidates at this point.   

So a sort of Ed Miliband redux. But taking labour in the other direction.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

I bet that Tory traitor woman posts on here 🤣


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I bet that Tory traitor woman posts on here 🤣


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I bet that Tory traitor woman posts on here 🤣



She hasn’t got time. She’s running Burgon’s Twitter:


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No. The polls reveal he’s less unpopular than Nandy and RLB. That’s hardly a massive achievement. I agree that looking the part is important by the way. Something the middle class left constantly overlook.
> 
> But it’ll only take him so far. It’s also the case that most people, unless political hacks, have only formed a liminal view of any of the candidates at this point.
> 
> So a sort of Ed Miliband redux. But taking labour in the other direction.



No I agree it’s no better than who is the least unpopular and there will be lines of attack for Starmer too that Tory leaning voters will love, too smooth, elitist etc. They will be levelled at him in a way Farage never has to field.

But there is a problem with chasing the ‘lost’ vote. It has not been culturally in sync with Labour for many years. It voted for Blair because he was a winner and the Tories made redundant. It didn’t like Corbyn and RLB has inherited that dislike, exacerbated by her poor performance and ‘onesie’ lack of gravity. A vote for her is in its face unless you presume that group will see the ‘error’ of its ways.

So the question is, to what extent is chasing that lost demographic Labour’s prime objective? If it is, then it probably has to be Nandy or Starmer unless you believe RLB can pull off a remarkable conversion of small town England to socialism.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> She hasn’t got time. She’s running Burgon’s Twitter:




Urban’s Blue Labourite supports appeasing Vermin media shocker.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> No I agree it’s no better than who is the least unpopular and there will be lines of attack for Starmer too that Tory leaning voters will love, too smooth, elitist etc. They will be levelled at him in a way Farage never has to field.
> 
> But there is a problem with chasing the ‘lost’ vote. It has not been culturally in sync with Labour for many years. It voted for Blair because he was a winner and the Tories made redundant. It didn’t like Corbyn and RLB has inherited that dislike, exacerbated by her poor performance and ‘onesie’ lack of gravity. A vote for her is in its face unless you presume that group will see the ‘error’ of its ways.
> 
> So the question is, to what extent is chasing that lost demographic Labour’s prime objective? If it is, then it probably has to be Nandy or Starmer unless you believe RLB can pull off a remarkable conversion of small town England to socialism.



A major part of the challenge for Labour is how to re-embed itself in the communities that you describe. You can argue about the extent to how deep the embedding really was in respect of the LP itself but there was a tradition - via unions, community resources, workplace sport and social clubs and significant sites of working class cultural production - that it needs to recover if it’s not going to die off for good in many working class communities. 

The resources should be there with 580,000 members. The issues - work, poverty, transport, crime, housing - where work could be engaged in are myriad 

Of all of the candidates Starmer is the least well equipped, for the reasons discussed at length here, for that task. The best he can achieve is to deepen Labour support where it is already strong and win back a segment of the lost vote that wants a slick ‘proper’ leader. It’s not enough.

On the cultural rupture, which exists without a shadow of a doubt, there is no quick fix. It’s a problem that the left has faced since Nixon’s election in the United States and which is now playing out across Europe too. 

But the work required to re-embed Labour is a critical starting point.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 26, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Urban’s Blue Labourite supports appeasing Vermin media shocker.



Jeff I know you use urban to vent and tbh I enjoy your posts but, while I have no problem with your stance as such, it's a bit of a contradiction from a labour supporter isn't it. I mean, it is solely an electoral vehicle. Which means getting people to vote for it. 

Just wondering if you wouldn't be more suited to insurrectionary anarchism or maoism or something


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Jeff I know you use urban to vent and tbh I enjoy your posts but, while I have no problem with your stance as such, it's a bit of a contradiction from a labour supporter isn't it. I mean, it is solely an electoral vehicle. Which means getting people to vote for it.
> 
> Just wondering if you wouldn't be more suited to insurrectionary anarchism or maoism or something



You're probably right. I think coming from a long line of Tranmere Rovers supporters may have made me develop an unhealthy habit of perpetually cheering the side that’s doomed to failure.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> it's a bit of a contradiction from a labour supporter isn't it. I mean, it is solely an electoral vehicle. Which means getting people to vote for it.



I know there is an election going on. I can see where RB is pitching himself.... “Rayner will win but I want to come a strong second and ensure that the tradition I come from remains influential going forward”.

What’s interesting is that he thinks setting up strawman arguments like this, and then crowing about how unpopular they are, is the mechanism to deploy to achieve it. It suggests a very low assessment of the politics of a significant section of the membership


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Jeff I know you use urban to vent and tbh I enjoy your posts but, while I have no problem with your stance as such, it's a bit of a contradiction from a labour supporter isn't it. I mean, it is solely an electoral vehicle. Which means getting people to vote for it.
> 
> Just wondering if you wouldn't be more suited to insurrectionary anarchism or maoism or something


i think posadism might be his natural home


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 26, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i think posadism might be his natural home



that or Hoxhaism. It’s a tough call.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> that or Hoxhaism. It’s a tough call.


posadism with robinsonian characteristics


----------



## chilango (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> ...but there was a tradition - via unions, community resources, workplace sport and social clubs and significant sites of working class cultural production.



All dead and gone for at least a couple of generations, in the places I know/knew.

Barely even a memory.


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 26, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> that woman in the audience is a 100% legend.  I wish she was running for Labour leader.
> 
> no pasaran! Death to all Tory-voting scabs and traitors!



Or simply a crackpot.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

chilango said:


> All dead and gone for at least a couple of generations, in the places I know/knew.
> 
> Barely even a memory.



On your first point that’s true. And you can correlate the decline of Labour, Unions and the social, cultural and political agency of pro working class politics (which I deliberately separate out from Labour and the trade union movement politics) along a similar timeline.

On your suggestion that it’s ‘barely a memory’ I disagree. Contained within the anti politics, populist and anti establishment protests like Brexit, there is a deep longing, an interpretive nostalgia and a deep anger at what was lost.

By that I don’t mean communities mourn the loss of a local GMB Branch or a steelworks football team. I mean they are aware that the fact that they once existed was once part of being part of a producer economy now reduced to surplus population for the consumption society. I mean the knowledge that they have been moved from the centre of the economic conversation to the periphery and I mean the sense that their community has been unraveling and going backwards for 40 odd years. 

The feeling is not limited to older people. It’s transmitted down generations but manifests itself in different ways


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just wondering if you wouldn't be more suited *To* *insurrectionary anarchism or maoism or something*



Album title of the week.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I bet that Tory traitor woman posts on here 🤣



19force8?


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> On your first point that’s true. And you can correlate the decline of Labour, Unions and the social, cultural and political agency of pro working class politics (which I deliberately separate out from Labour and the trade union movement politics) along a similar timeline.
> 
> On your suggestion that it’s ‘barely a memory’ I disagree. Contained within the anti politics, populist and anti establishment protests like Brexit, there is a deep longing, an interpretive nostalgia and a deep anger at what was lost.
> 
> ...



I think that’s the best summary you’ve made of that.

Within those groups those who still work in the public sector are maybe the happiest with Labour because that social compact remains in place. Those who are not either get by ok or struggle very badly.

Those who are ok include those who are getting by pretty well as small business owners or self employed. Some have become fairly natural Tories because they are self-reliant and want the simplest relationship with the state. Their views are often culturally at odds with Labour or so they/Labour believe. Those who are struggling (and everyone is precarious) just appear to feel abandoned by all.


----------



## chilango (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> On your first point that’s true. And you can correlate the decline of Labour, Unions and the social, cultural and political agency of pro working class politics (which I deliberately separate out from Labour and the trade union movement politics) along a similar timeline.
> 
> On your suggestion that it’s ‘barely a memory’ I disagree. Contained within the anti politics, populist and anti establishment protests like Brexit, there is a deep longing, an interpretive nostalgia and a deep anger at what was lost.
> 
> ...



Only where those communities are more less intact perhaps?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 26, 2020)

I thought rise of the right and that ilk were interesting when they explored that the growth for far right politics in w/c areas was deeply informed by a nostalgia for (poor word, maybe sense of loss of) post war to thatcher period, social democracy, whatever we call it, when w/c had social value and economic power


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

chilango said:


> Only where those communities are more less intact perhaps?



I’m specifically talking here about the ‘red wall’ seats. Not cities. And not areas where the service economy offers money circulation if not good work. I’m not sure how you measure ‘intact’ but if you mean where a collective memory exists (even in an anomic form) then it’s present in many of these places.


----------



## chilango (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m specifically talking here about the ‘red wall’ seats. Not cities. And not areas where the service economy offers money circulation if not good work. I’m not sure how you measure ‘intact’ but if you mean where a collective memory exists (even in an anomic form) then it’s present in many of these places.



Yeah. I'm not really disagreeing.

It's just been absent from anywhere I've lived in the UK (not abroad though).


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I thought rise of the right and that ilk were interesting when they explored that the growth for far right politics in w/c areas was deeply informed by a nostalgia for (poor word, maybe sense of loss of) post war to thatcher period, social democracy, whatever we call it, when w/c had social value and economic power


Melancholy (as opposed to mourning - discussed a bit here). It's a good analysis IMO, the actions of the political class have halted any ability of these communities to move on in a way that has not happened in, say, city centre communities.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)




----------



## two sheds (Feb 26, 2020)

I like the way that the right wing candidate is always the one to 'unite the party'


----------



## kebabking (Feb 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I like the way that the right wing candidate is always the one to 'unite the party'



Its shorthand for 'with the electorate...'.


----------



## belboid (Feb 26, 2020)

Nandy is the right-wings candidate - look at which MP's nominated them both.  That's why Starmer can, supposedly, unite them.


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> On your first point that’s true. And you can correlate the decline of Labour, Unions and the social, cultural and political agency of pro working class politics (which I deliberately separate out from Labour and the trade union movement politics) along a similar timeline.
> 
> On your suggestion that it’s ‘barely a memory’ I disagree. Contained within the anti politics, populist and anti establishment protests like Brexit, there is a deep longing, an interpretive nostalgia and a deep anger at what was lost.
> 
> ...



Honestly mate, some of your posts are amazing - like this one, it’s like you are posting people’s subconscious.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I like the way that the right wing candidate is always the one to 'unite the party'


How on earth is starmer right wing?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> How on earth is starmer right wing?



In the context of this leadership campaign he's the candidate on the right though


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> In the context of this leadership campaign he's the candidate on the right though


Where's that political compass graphic when you need it?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 26, 2020)

Abstained on welfare, voted against investigations in Iraq, voted for Trident, pro-EU, backed Owen Smith, resigned from Corbyn's cabinet.

EDIT: Oh and unlike Starmer Nandy has spoken at UCU meetings during the strikes
EDIT2: Actually Starmer seems to have gone to the picket at SOAS TBF


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> In the context of this leadership campaign he's the candidate on the right though


That would be nandy


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 26, 2020)

Depends what you mean by right, Nandy is easily to the left of Starmer on certain issues (welfare, trident, Iraq).
Both Nandy and Starmer are from the soft left but they are pitching themselves to different sections of the party outside the soft left, Nandy to the remnants of the old Labour right, Starmer to the liberals.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

Starmer didn’t abstain on welfare - he voted against it at third reading. He wrote an opinion piece about why the Iraq war was unlawful at the time (of course he wasn’t an MP then). and he has a long history of working pro bono for the under-privileged.
I haven’t looked into Nandy’s voting record tbf but from watching the hustings she seems to be going for the centre-left vote?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> How on earth is starmer right wing?



Well mainly stuff I've seen on here, and meaning further right than RLB:  time at DPP including ten year sentences for benefit fraud, resigned in protest at Corbyn’s leadership, supported Andy Burnham for leader, continuing support for Remain despite referendum result.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Starmer didn’t abstain on welfare - he voted against it at third reading.


Come on, he abstained on it in the second reading. One of the key moments in Corbyn becoming leader, he made a choice not to defend welfare, a choice that Long-Bailey refused to accept and Nandy said she would have opposed.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Well mainly stuff I've seen on here, and meaning further right than RLB:  time at DPP including ten year sentences for benefit fraud, resigned in protest at Corbyn’s leadership, supported Andy Burnham for leader, continuing support for Remain despite referendum result.


Fair enough he’s further right than RLB but saying the “right wing” candidate is a bit unfair? Andy Burnham is hardly right wing, the guidelines on benefit fraud sentencing (note the word FRAUD)  related to where there were aggravating features such as multiple offences, abuse of position or substantial loss to public funds. Can’t deny he resigned under Corbyn! but so did nandy.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Come on, he abstained on it in the second reading. One of the key moments in Corbyn becoming leader, he made a choice not to defend welfare, a choice that Long-Bailey refused to accept and Nandy said she would have opposed.


he has been an MP for 5 months at the time and was following Harriet Harman’s whip.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2020)

Er...


----------



## Humberto (Feb 26, 2020)

They need to take a fresh approach; they need to stop playing nice. Too many open goals were missed and there were too many cautious plays. Tell it how it is. Stop backing down from arguments. It didn't work for Miliband or Corbyn and it has left us all with the Tories in charge again and allowed to do their worst.

If you let the opposition always set the agenda and are always on the back foot and then 'bide your time', you just look weak. And lose. It was a good manifesto, in my opinion, but who reads them? It's obviously very important to have the right policies, but the Tories are the Eton>Oxbridge rich establishment default. If the PLP won't get their hands dirty, can't hold their own in a debate and won't be positive and take not even the open goals then we are screwed. There should be no rapprochement with these murdering greedy scum.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Depends what you mean by right, Nandy is easily to the left of Starmer on certain issues (welfare, trident, Iraq).
> Both Nandy and Starmer are from the soft left but they are pitching themselves to different sections of the party outside the soft left, Nandy to the remnants of the old Labour right, Starmer to the liberals.



Precisely. The risible attempts to position Starmer as ‘left’ purely on the basis of a comparison with Nandy should be treated with the seriousness it deserves. 

The excitement from some about the imminent recapture of Labour by the epitome of centrist middle class liberalism is telling.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 26, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I thought rise of the right and that ilk were interesting when they explored that the growth for far right politics in w/c areas was deeply informed by a nostalgia for (poor word, maybe sense of loss of) post war to thatcher period, social democracy, whatever we call it, when w/c had social value and economic power



Nostalgia for that age is peculiar in many respects. There was almost no social mobility and it was repressive and violent, men to other men, groups of men to other groups of men, men to women legal and unpunished, straight to gay, white to black etc. But people remember it as orderly, like Camberwick Green. Jobs and a role for life (with limited choices) and yes a share collectively of economic power.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Nostalgia for that age is peculiar in many respects. There was almost no social mobility and it was repressive and violent, men to other men, groups of men to other groups of men, men to women legal and unpunished, straight to gay, white to black etc. But people remember it as orderly, like Camberwick Green. Jobs and a role for life (with limited choices) and yes a share collectively of economic power.



Nostalgia works on many levels and takes many forms. This sort of offhand dismissal is well wide of the mark


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Precisely. The risible attempts to position Starmer as ‘left’ purely on the basis of a comparison with Nandy should be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
> 
> The excitement from some about the imminent recapture of Labour by the epitome of centrist middle class liberalism is telling.


He’s soft left, in comparison to anybody.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He’s soft left, in comparison to anybody.



That’s utterly meaningless. He represents a very specific class position, feeling and view. How he voted once, on some issue, is irrelevant.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That’s utterly meaningless. He represents a very specific class position, feeling and view. How he voted once, on some issue, is irrelevant.


I wasn’t the one bringing up his voting record. 

the son of a toolmaker and a nurse - the first in his family to go to uni - do you not like working class men succeeding?

cant wait until keir wins!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 26, 2020)

Are you reading from an autocue


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 26, 2020)

I heard Starmer’s going to trap the burgonites in a centrist gulag and then jolyon maugham is going to come along and beat them to death like he did that fox.

😱


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 26, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I wasn’t the one bringing up his voting record.
> 
> the son of a toolmaker and a nurse - the first in his family to go to uni - do you not like working class men succeeding?
> 
> cant wait until keir wins!



I’ve commented, on this very thread, that I respect his background. But the more important point is this - does he represent, politically, the priorities and immediate needs of the skilled working class that he comes from? I suspect we won’t agree on the answer to that.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 26, 2020)

Liberal Remainer Scum vote goes for Starmer 
Mockery wanker for Nandy
Red/brown Zionist-traitor-watchers for RLB


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2020)

If you look at what they've actually said, in this campaign... Starmer has explicitly stated his support for renationalisation and his Prevention of Military Intervention Act  are very clear signals to the Corbynist left - Nandy has adamantly refused to signal any such support, whilst clearly supporting the liberal friendly policies around free movement and trans rights. The only real difference between them is on brexit, where Nandy is better, but that's not the essential thing going forward. 

I think this is an  interesting and _nuanced _piece about Starmer - Keir Starmer’s past is coming under scrutiny. What can we learn from it? | David Renton


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 27, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you reading from an autocue



The chyron off Channel 4 news.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

> David Renton



I wondered what happened to the old Etonian more-jumper-than-man fella


----------



## MrSki (Feb 27, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> The chyron off Channel 4 news.


So boring little cunt how are you voting in the Labour leadership elections?


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 27, 2020)

.


Smokeandsteam said:


> But the more important point is this - does he represent, politically, the priorities and immediate needs of the skilled working class that he comes from?





I’m sure I heard Corbyn mention in PMQS that all working class work was skilled - there is no such thing as unskilled working class work!

Edit: you are correct.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 27, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I’m sure I heard Corbyn mention in PMQS that *all *working class work was skilled - there is no such thing as unskilled working class work!


He forgot to include Amazon drivers that will soon be replaced by robots. Name a job that has no skill attached to it? Boris 'cuntchops' Johnson can't use a fucking mop the unskilled mophead.


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 27, 2020)

MrSki said:


> He forgot to include Amazon drivers that will soon be replaced by robots. Name a job that has no skill attached to it? Boris 'cuntchops' Johnson can't use a fucking mop the unskilled mophead.



Yeah, I agree.

‘Unskilled work’ is an oxymoron in my books.


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 27, 2020)

MrSki said:


> So boring little cunt how are you voting in the Labour leadership elections?



Stop acting the hard man on the internet - you’re probably suffering from small man syndrome and in real life a shrinking violet who’s afraid of his own shadow.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Nostalgia for that age is peculiar in many respects. There was almost no social mobility and it was repressive and violent, men to other men, groups of men to other groups of men, men to women legal and unpunished, straight to gay, white to black etc. But people remember it as orderly, like Camberwick Green. Jobs and a role for life (with limited choices) and yes a share collectively of economic power.


I think you are thinking about a totally different period to what PT is talking about. Social mobility was at it's height in the mid-70s, and the conventional picture of the 70s is anything but orderly.



belboid said:


> If you look at what they've actually said, in this campaign... Starmer has explicitly stated his support for renationalisation


Has he? His 10 pledges talk about 'common ownership' but what is actually meant by that is pretty vaugue and could span a range of positions.


> Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.





fakeplasticgirl said:


> he has been an MP for 5 months at the time and was following Harriet Harman’s whip.


So what, it was an appalling choice, recognised by the vast majority of Labour members, the idea he had to follow it is nonsense. He could have stood up and challenged it - it wasn't just Corbyn that voted against, even Khan voted against (admittedly in his case probably with one eye on the popularity of such a stance with the membership).


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Nostalgia works on many levels and takes many forms. This sort of offhand dismissal is well wide of the mark



It’s not a dismissal, it’s an observation that there was good and bad. It’s a measure of how alienated people feel that they hark back to a time when the Upper Class had 57 varieties of sayings expressing how to exclude people ‘the old school tie’, ‘U and Non-U’. Nostalgia is always pretty suspect though.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I think you are thinking about a totally different period to what PT is talking about. Social mobility was at it's height in the mid-70s, and the conventional picture of the 70s is anything but orderly.
> 
> Has he? His 10 pledges talk about 'common ownership' but what is actually meant by that is pretty vaugue and could span a range of positions.
> 
> ...



I agree that the 70s was highly disordered, from industrial relations to football matches. I‘m talking about a nostalgia for the seeming order that there was, like when small towns all had a bank, a Post Office and two mail deliveries a day. I’m not saying it’s correct.

I don’t know about social mobility in the 50s, 60s and 70s though. Part of the unrest was due to how extreme those class differences were, the  lack of entry into management, professions and ownership of all but a white and male middle and upper class. Things were changing, working class voices heard more in culture, but I remember Educating Rita, early 80s, as a fish out of water drama. It was not expected to hear her voice in those surroundings. Social mobility was certainly growing, people knocking on the door, but what indices suggest it was at its highest?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s not a dismissal, it’s an observation that there was good and bad. It’s a measure of how alienated people feel that they hark back to a time when the Upper Class had 57 varieties of sayings expressing how to exclude people ‘the old school tie’, ‘U and Non-U’. Nostalgia is always pretty suspect though.


I suspect that most of those voters for whom a 'nostalgia' for the '45-'79 years is a driver towards their populist electoral choices are not dwelling primarily on social trends but, rather, on their family's lived experiences. Harking back to a period of secure employment, career choice, rising living standards, organised labour, affordable housing & transport, accessible welfare, functioning NHS, community cohesion etc. does not seem peculiar to me.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I suspect that most of those voters for whom a 'nostalgia' for the '45-'79 years is a driver towards their populist electoral choices are not dwelling primarily on social trends but, rather, on their family's lived experiences. Harking back to a period of secure employment, career choice, rising living standards, organised labour, affordable housing & transport, accessible welfare, functioning NHS, community cohesion etc. does not seem peculiar to me.



It’s a partial view, that’s all, in some ways true, particularly with regard to housing so much better then, but partially false also.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s a partial view, that’s all, in some ways true, particularly with regard to housing so much better then, but partially false also.



Its a reaction to the atomisation we have seen and the resulting breakdown of communities. Of course there are things that have changed for the better, but it isn't like this is an explicit and coherent call for a return to post war/pre-80. If it was then they would probably be turning to some sort of left vehicle or labour.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s a partial view, that’s all, in some ways true, particularly with regard to housing so much better then, but partially false also.


Maybe, but when it comes to affective political drivers, it matters not one jot to those deciding how/not to vote whether or not they are 'true' or 'false'; they are what they are.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I think you are thinking about a totally different period to what PT is talking about. Social mobility was at it's height in the mid-70s, and the conventional picture of the 70s is anything but orderly.



I've got data at home on this. If I remember rightly social mobility peaked during the 50s and 60s, as did "equality", before taking a real hammering in the 1980s which they haven't recovered from.

But...

Social mobility is problematic in some ways. butchersapron posted something on this a while back, but I'd add that it gets used to create narratives of meritocracy and aspiration feeding into the neoliberal idea of individuals making good and bad choices etc. etc.

There's also something about social mobility being primarily a concern of the m/c but off the top of my head I can't recall that argument/research.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2020)

Also I think there's a lot of nostalgia being promoted for a time that never happened.

Owen Hatherly's book on this is an ok read to get you thinking.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

chilango said:


> Also I think there's a lot of nostalgia being promoted for a time that never happened.



Also worth remembering that one favoured tory attack line (gleefully promoted by the billionaire press) was that _we don't want a return to the 1970's. _It's quite a feat of false consciousness creation to simultaneously exploit nostalgia for an era whilst demonising it as a warning against even thinking of voting for change.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Also worth remembering that one favoured tory attack line (gleefully promoted by the billionaire press) was that _we don't want a return to the 1970's. _It's quite a feat of false consciousness creation to simultaneously exploit nostalgia for an era whilst demonising it as a warning against even thinking of voting for change.



My mother can do that in a single sentence


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I suspect that most of those voters for whom a 'nostalgia' for the '45-'79 years is a driver towards their populist electoral choices are not dwelling primarily on social trends but, rather, on their family's lived experiences. Harking back to a period of secure employment, career choice, rising living standards, organised labour, affordable housing & transport, accessible welfare, functioning NHS, community cohesion etc. does not seem peculiar to me.


That is exactly what is recounted in the book Proper Tidy is talking about.


chilango said:


> I've got data at home on this. If I remember rightly social mobility peaked during the 50s and 60s, as did "equality", before taking a real hammering in the 1980s which they haven't recovered from.


Depends on how you measure inequality but the gini coefficient was at its lowest in the mid-70s. I don't disagree with your comments on social mobility being problematic, but it is absolutely clear that social mobility was higher back in the period that the "melancholy" of those PT was talking about was for than now.


Mr Moose said:


> I don’t know about social mobility in the 50s, 60s and 70s though. Part of the unrest was due to how extreme those class differences were, the  lack of entry into management, professions and ownership of all but a white and male middle and upper class. Things were changing, working class voices heard more in culture, but I remember Educating Rita, early 80s, as a fish out of water drama. It was not expected to hear her voice in those surroundings. Social mobility was certainly growing, people knocking on the door, but what indices suggest it was at its highest?


What do you think social mobility is?
Gini coefficient and % GDP as wages were at their lowest/highest in the mid-70s, social mobility largely follows the inverse trend of the gini-coefficient, increasingly massively during the 50s and 60s, reaching a level in the 70s and then decreasingly massively since, to the point where it is now statistically insignificant.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> That is exactly what is recounted in the book Proper Tidy is talking about.
> Depends on how you measure inequality but the gini coefficient was at its lowest in the mid-70s. I don't disagree with your comments on social mobility being problematic, but it is absolutely clear that social mobility was higher back in the period that the "melancholy" was much greater than now.
> What do you think social mobility is?
> Gini coefficient and % GDP as wages were at their lowest/highest in the mid-70s, social mobility largely follows the inverse trend of the gini-coefficient, increasingly massively during the 50s and 60s, reaching a level in the 70s and then decreasingly massively since, to the point where it is now statistically insignificant.


Usual caveats about Gini which 'measures' household income ignoring the accumulating wealth and assets of those who fiscally have little/no income. Also ignores any notion of disposable income inequality, especially given that growing numbers have to shift huge chunks of that 'income' into the the pockets of the rentier class.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Usual caveats about Gini which 'measures' household income ignoring the accumulating wealth and assets of those who fiscally have little/no income. Also ignores any notion of disposable income inequality, especially given that growing numbers have to shift huge chunks of that 'income' into the the pockets of the rentier class.


Sure, but most other measure of "equality" show the same picture, eg 1, 2


> In this paper we have used a unique data source to examine changes in inequality and mobility in the labour market between 1978/79 and 2005/06. We find significant increases in annual earnings inequality over this period among male and female employees. According to most measures the increase in inequality, particularly in the 1980s, is greater among men. When we consider a wider measure of inequality which includes periods of no earnings from employment we find greater increases in the 1980s for men as unemployment increased and falls for women in the 1990s as employment among women increased.


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2020)

Social mobility and (relative) economic equality are two very different things, and neither really equate directly to feelings of community cohesion. 

While there are obviously places where people can still  remember a time when community was partially a result of shared experiences from a particular industry, and so feel understandably nostalgic for those times and that feeling, times have changed and that type of community can't really be recreated, not even by the Labour party and its new leader.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

andysays said:


> Social mobility and (relative) economic equality are two very different things, and neither really equate directly to feelings of community cohesion.


They may be different but every single piece of evidence I've seen has shown the two go in hand-in-hand.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> That is exactly what is recounted in the book Proper Tidy is talking about.
> Depends on how you measure inequality but the gini coefficient was at its lowest in the mid-70s. I don't disagree with your comments on social mobility being problematic, but it is absolutely clear that social mobility was higher back in the period that the "melancholy" of those PT was talking about was for than now.
> What do you think social mobility is?
> Gini coefficient and % GDP as wages were at their lowest/highest in the mid-70s, social mobility largely follows the inverse trend of the gini-coefficient, increasingly massively during the 50s and 60s, reaching a level in the 70s and then decreasingly massively since, to the point where it is now statistically insignificant.



Starting in the fifties for wages is from a really low base. But in any case, that’s not quite the same as social mobility as a broad consideration of life chances and opportunities.

But I fully accept that people lost a lot, housing, economic power, work life balance, job security etc from the 1980s onwards.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Starting in the fifties for wages is from a really low base.


So what? That does not invalidate my claim.


Mr Moose said:


> But in any case, that’s not quite the same as social mobility as a broad consideration of life chances and opportunities.


Right, so writing class out of the equation to hide the huge decrease in social mobility. You asked for some evidence of my claim - I've posted it (and similar data previously), if you are going to challenge that you need to post some evidence to back it up.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> So what? That does not invalidate my claim.
> Right, so writing class out of the equation to hide the huge decrease in social mobility. You asked for some evidence of my claim - I've posted it (and similar data previously), if you are going to challenge that you need to post some evidence to back it up.



Where have I ‘written class out’? You do get a bit excited sometimes.

Maybe we are talking about different things. Wage mobility is one thing, but it seems odd to claim those decades as virtues of _social _mobility when so many elevated positions and professions were almost completely denied to working class people and almost all women.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Where have I ‘written class out’? You do get a bit excited sometimes.
> 
> Maybe we are talking about different things. Wage mobility is one thing, but it seems odd to claim those decades as virtues of _social _mobility when so many elevated positions and professions were almost completely denied to working class people and almost all women.


Your dismissal of the 70s as a decade where "[t]here was almost no social mobility and it was repressive and violent", your instance on social mobility as cultural signifiers rather than connection to the means of production writes out class. 

Study after study has shown that the social mobility that accompanied the post-war period has ground to a halt. To deny such is to place you in the same basket as neo-liberals that contend that equal of opportunity is possible with measures that do not tackle equality.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> They may be different but every single piece of evidence I've seen has shown the two go in hand-in-hand.









The Great Gatsby Curve


----------



## kabbes (Feb 27, 2020)

There’s been some spirited attempts to explain the relationship too, from both directions.  One that makes sense to me is: if inequality is very high then there is too much to lose from dropping social status.  Consequently, the effort that goes into entrenching status is higher, and the ladder pulled up faster.  Ironically, this also leads to increased unhappiness even at the top end, because those with status are forced into activities that maintain it rather than pursuing authentic and intrinsic goals.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2020)

Also, the greater the concentration of advantage then the more incestuous its reproduction will be.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2020)

A couple of graphs from Piketty.

Note the U shape centred on the 50s-70s.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I wondered what happened to the old Etonian more-jumper-than-man fella



Renton went to Eton? 

Turned out better than Johnson and Cameron though.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

treelover said:


> Renton went to Eton?



he doesn’t do much to hide it


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Your dismissal of the 70s as a decade where "[t]here was almost no social mobility and it was repressive and violent", your instance on social mobility as cultural signifiers rather than connection to the means of production writes out class.
> 
> Study after study has shown that the social mobility that accompanied the post-war period has ground to a halt. To deny such is to place you in the same basket as neo-liberals that contend that equal of opportunity is possible with measures that do not tackle equality.



Do you have a straw man target for each post? How to link each one until you can shout ‘liberal’? Just go back and count up the things that I am not saying you claim I am.

How can you possibly doubt that, whatever wage growth was, social relations were not repressive to working class people in those decades? What the trade has been is individual advancement for some against solidarity. I’ve never suggested this is a good state of affairs.

Let’s not confuse the things that were lost, with how difficult those times were or I’ll simply suspect you weren’t there.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 27, 2020)

Some of it is down to self-improvement being something you have to do and fund yourself, students running up big debts to make themselves suitable for employment, rather than companies themselves investing in staff. This sort of stuff drives individualism rather than collectivism.  It’s a big difference from the social mobility my dad enjoyed in the 70s, working in manufacturing and through day release and the best part of a decade at night school supported by the company gaining more or less the equivalent of an ordinary degree, and through this a skilled technical role. Now companies want employees that arrive fully-skilled. I can also relate to the nostalgia for company sports and social activities, the annual company picnic etc.


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Has he? His 10 pledges talk about 'common ownership' but what is actually meant by that is pretty vaugue and could span a range of positions.


yeah, but so is everyone's. Nandy is either vague or just talks rubbish (eg about the buses not being mentioned in the manifesto when they were). And she is nominated by the most right-wing MP's.  The only reason to think that she is left of Starmer is her accent.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 27, 2020)

This is how blair ended up surrounded by loads of mad old trots isn't it


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2020)

did he?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Has he? His 10 pledges talk about 'common ownership' but what is actually meant by that is pretty vaugue and could span a range of positions.



_Everyone gets a share._


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Do you have a straw man target for each post? How to link each one until you can shout ‘liberal’? Just go back and count up the things that I am not saying you claim I am.


You made the, frankly ludicrous, claim that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s - that _*is *_writing out class, it is a reduction of social mobility to cultural fluff rather than recognising the real existing connection to the means of production. The 70s saw labour power at a real high which is why ever since liberalism has tried to systematically undermine the power of labour with the myth of out on control unions and bodies in the street.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 27, 2020)

belboid said:


> yeah, but so is everyone's. Nandy is either vague or just talks rubbish (eg about the buses not being mentioned in the manifesto when they were). And she is nominated by the most right-wing MP's.  The only reason to think that she is left of Starmer is her accent.


And her willingness to defend welfare, her voting record. 
There are areas in which you can make a credible argument that Nandy is to the left of Starmer - and vice versa. They are competing for different constituencies.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

Nandy is Positioning  herself as the candidate who’ll look/reach out from the party. Is that a credible claim?


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Nandy is Positioning  herself as the candidate who’ll look/reach out from the party. Is that a credible claim?



I think it’s fair to say she’s the most normal/human seeming out of all, and that might count for something in reaching out to others. At the same time there will be people who will find Starmer reassuring in his mildness, like what a politician should look/act like, those older more comfortable voters who don’t want anything fucking up at all. Not everyone wants ‘change’.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

Dogsauce said:


> I think it’s fair to say she’s the most normal/human seeming out of all, and that might count for something in reaching out to others.



I’m more interested in what she intends to actually do


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2020)

On nostalgia.

I grew up in Plymouth in 60s 70s. At that time the working class area I was in , the Docklands, had good jobs. It was after I left that my town became a left behind area that ended up supporting Brexit. Post War Plymouth things seemed to be improving. If slowly. This all changed 80s onwards.

My life in London has been in a largely Black working class. Second generation immigrants. They imo dont have a nostalgia for a lost past. Life for a Black working class person, whose parents /grandparents came from this country has a memory of racism. Either from the state or the existing white community.

There place in this country has never been assured. Why imo Remain vote in my area was 80% and they stuck to Labour party.

So there is a section of the working class in this country who are not nostalgic about recent past. As a Black British friend of mine said in 70s there were areas in South London where he would not go. Due to in your face racism.

Does not mean to say the community I live in have not been screwed by austierity cuts. But the relationship to Labour party is different.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 27, 2020)

Nandy is coming 3rd. 

She’s the best communicator of the three by a distance. She’s also identified many of the most pressing issues. 

The problem is that when she moves onto solutions there’s nothing new there. It’s a reheated mess.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Nandy is coming 3rd.
> 
> She’s the best communicator of the three by a distance. She’s also identified many of the most pressing issues.
> 
> The problem is that when she moves onto solutions there’s nothing new there. It’s a reheated mess.



Do going reckon she’ll get a shad cabinet position?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> On nostalgia.
> 
> I grew up in Plymouth in 60s 70s. At that time the working class area I was in , the Docklands, had good jobs. It was after I left that my town became a left behind area that ended up supporting Brexit. Post War Plymouth things seemed to be improving. If slowly.
> 
> ...



I think it’s more complex than that in my experience.

So, for example, when I talk to black and Asian steelworkers in the West Midlands they remember the past as a period when they had good work, work that was reasonably well paid and secure and when there was a sense of momentum. But they also remember racism, workplace grade segregation (often tacitly endorsed by the union) limited solidarity and bigotry. 

There is simple nostalgia that holds that the past was great and everything now is crap (although even that can have complexities as to why people think it). That doesn’t take us very far. But there is also a contingent nostalgia that remembers the past in a much more interpretative and engaged manner. When you listen properly to people remembering you often hear and learn a lot


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do going reckon she’ll get a shad cabinet position?



All 3 candidates have already said they’ll offer Shadow Cabinet jobs to the other two I think.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’m more interested in what she intends to actually do



Chicken and Egg: unless Labour can (re)connect with voters, then it could have a manifesto to build a staircase to the Moon or nationalise all housing and it will matter no more than me scratching my arse.

Personally I think Nandy has the greater chance of that connection/break through, I see see RLB as being voter repellent, and while Starmer can certainly do the _plausible_ thing, i'd put some money (but not a huge wedge) on his brexit shenanigans being toxic during a GE campaign.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2020)

What puts me off Keir Starmer is that in that my area Lambeth all the (New) Labour Cllrs support Starmer. And they did from very start of the election process.

I was talking to a few Labour party members last night. 

I said that the New Labour Cllr want Starmer as they want their party back. The Labour party member agreed. 

Im dreading it. Im involved in community bread and butter issues. Boring planning and local issues.

I really hoped the Corbyn new membership would lead to a change in how the Blairite Lambeth Council operate. 

If election of Starmer leads to turning the clock back to "centre" ground I find that really depresssing. 

Had a few of the local new young members supporting us on a local issue. 

Against our local Cllrs. 

The last three issues Ive been involved in, bread and butter issues, have pitted us against the Labour Cllrs. Its not something I enjoy. I see myself as Labour voter.

I saw what Corbyn/ McDonnell/ Momentum as breathing new life in my local area. My Labour Cllrs hated it. They want a return to top down centre politics. 

A return to "sensible" centre politics will not mean linking up with community issues.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 27, 2020)

Clearly RLB is going to lose so it's a moot point, but I don't think there is any reason to think she's voter repellent, other than the fact that the media will hate her as the most left wing candidate. She seems fiercely competent to me, in a similar vein to Sturgeon, and I suspect views would change in a positive direction the more she was seen. Whereas I have a feeling the opposite is likely to be the case with Starmer.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

Would those who coalesce (for want of a better term) around nandy be a good place to start for those of us who want to work with those within the LP, whilst staying well out of the party itself?

I’ve repeatedly approached by local LP on doing local work on health/social care but to no avail.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

lazythursday said:


> Clearly RLB is going to lose so it's a moot point, but I don't think there is any reason to think she's voter repellent, other than the fact that the media will hate her as the most left wing candidate. She seems fiercely competent to me, in a similar vein to Sturgeon, and I suspect views would change in a positive direction the more she was seen. Whereas I have a feeling the opposite is likely to be the case with Starmer.



Whatever the personal appeal/qualities of RLB, she’s a beacon for the nutters.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’ve repeatedly approached by local LP on doing local work on health/social care but to no avail.


That's interesting.
When you say 'doing local work on health/social care' do you mean in an advisory/consultancy sort of way?
Did they actually turn down your offer or just not respond?


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Whatever the personal appeal/qualities of RLB, she’s a beacon for the nutters.


I think that's a bit unfair. Those people were always going to back the candidate perceived as the most left wing. That doesn't mean they're the bulk of her support, and I'd have hope she might have better political courage to face them down than Corbyn did. We have to tack to the right because of some fringe elements? Very depressing if that's the case.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> That's interesting.
> When you say 'doing local work on health/social care' do you mean in an advisory/consultancy sort of way?
> Did they actually turn down your offer or just not respond?



They’re polite and seem interested just never hear back from them.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

lazythursday said:


> I think that's a bit unfair. Those people were always going to back the candidate perceived as the most left wing. That doesn't mean they're the bulk of her support, and I'd have hope she might have better political courage to face them down than Corbyn did. We have to tack to the right because of some fringe elements? Very depressing if that's the case.



Sure there’s none nutter RLB supporters. But if you’re the kind of person that lies awake raging that Mossad have nicked your cigarettes, RLB is your  choice


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Sure there’s none nutter RLB supporters. But if you’re the kind of person that lies awake raging that Mossad have nicked your cigarettes, RLB is your  choice


Nah. Surely you spoil your ballot paper because she signed up to the Board of Deputies' pledges. Write Chris Willaimson is innocent on it or something?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

My local LP  seems ok. Some annoying loud student types, and some nutters too, but also some who _got_ the (at times niche) issues k discussed with them


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> They’re polite and seem interested just never hear back from them.


That seems a shame. What have you offered, to talk at their meetings etc?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> That seems a shame. What have you offered, to talk at their meetings etc?



There’s a lot of ‘integrated care’ bollcoks going on in the region I live in. I want all hands on deck to make sure it’s not a come plate fuckkng catastrophe


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> There’s a lot of ‘integrated care’ bollcoks going on in the region I live in. I want all hands on deck to make sure it’s not a come plate fuckkng catastrophe



I was at a NHS strategy meeting this evening (what with me being so ‘vulnerable’)

It was terrifying


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> There’s a lot of ‘integrated care’ bollcoks going on in the region I live in. I want all hands on deck to make sure it’s not a come plate fuckkng catastrophe


So, you're offering them more of an activist/organiser input, then?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> So, you're offering them more of an activist/organiser input, then?


I’m offering to sit down with them and work what can be done to stop people dying


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’m offering to sit down with them and work what can be done to stop people dying



The disabled didn’t go away after the election.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

I don’t give a fuck what happens in the leadership election. I want to stop wards being unstaffed etc


----------



## oryx (Feb 27, 2020)

kebabking said:


> , I see see RLB as being voter repellent, and while Starmer can certainly do the _plausible_ thing, i'd put some money (but not a huge wedge) on his brexit shenanigans being toxic during a GE campaign.



While we established several pages ago that we vehemently disagree on RLB   I completely agree with you on Starmer.

The right-wing media will be out to discredit any Labour leader, obviously, and his stance on Brexit will be the most potent and as you say toxic in this respect.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’m offering to sit down with them and work what can be done to stop people dying


Fair enough.
I think many CLPs have officers with titles like Political Education Officer. Although it sounds a bit NKVD, it might be best seeing if you can find the contact details of that person; they tend to organise talks & stuff.
Though it may be that they're wary of someone approaching them who is not a member?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 27, 2020)

lazythursday said:


> I think that's a bit unfair. Those people were always going to back the candidate perceived as the most left wing. That doesn't mean they're the bulk of her support, and I'd have hope she might have better political courage to face them down than Corbyn did. We have to tack to the right because of some fringe elements? Very depressing if that's the case.



I think - if she were to become leader - she's already fucked that: her statements and (non) actions during the campaign have written 'i'm with you!' in letters so large that even loons on the Moon could read them.

_I give Jeremy 10 out of 10...

i didn't say anything about the anti-Semitism thing because I was too busy working...

i didn't confront the deranged loon spouting off about the Israeli lobby at the hustings because it wasn't in my script..._

It has nothing to do with left-right axis of the leader - there are many here well to the left of RLB and you'd never hear such phrases pass their lips even under torture.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I think - if she were to become leader - she's already fucked that: her statements and (non) actions during the campaign have written 'i'm with you!' in letters so large that even loons on the Moon could read them.
> 
> _I give Jeremy 10 out of 10...
> 
> ...



That’s what I said you cunt


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Fair enough.
> I think many CLPs have officers with titles like Political Education Officer. Although it sounds a bit NKVD, it might be best seeing if you can find the contact details of that person; they tend to organise talks & stuff.
> Though it may be that they're wary of someone approaching them who is not a member?



Well if they are weary of that it’s not to their credit. I have nothing to prove to them. 

Ta for the info re contacts. I’ll follow that up


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Well if they are weary of that it’s not to their credit. I have nothing to prove to them.
> 
> Ta for the info re contacts. I’ll follow that up


Speculation on my part, but maybe the anti-semitism issue has sensitised CLPs to be wary of giving non-members a platform in their meetings etc. Just a thought.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Whatever the personal appeal/qualities of RLB, she’s a beacon for the nutters.



Not using disparaging remarks about other people's mental health to discedit their opinions are we?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not using disparaging remarks about other people's mental health to discedit their opinions are we?


I’m pretty sure he meant it in the sense of having views that are well outside the Overton window, shall we say, rather than in the sense of having difficulties in living.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I’m pretty sure he meant it in the sense of having views that are well outside the Overton window


That's most of on here, then?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> That's most of on here, then?


Are you expecting me to dispute that urban is 99% nutters?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Are you expecting me to dispute that urban is 99% nutters?


Actually, to be a tad po-faced here...can't say that I'm at all comfortable with using MH terms like this.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Actually, to be a tad po-faced here...can't say that I'm at all comfortable with using MH terms like this.


Me either.  But I also think it’s unfair to impute a particular meaning to MIB’s words when it’s clear that wasn’t the meaning being invoked.  No matter how much I would personally avoid that phraseology myself.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> You made the, frankly ludicrous, claim that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s - that _*is *_writing out class, it is a reduction of social mobility to cultural fluff rather than recognising the real existing connection to the means of production. The 70s saw labour power at a real high which is why ever since liberalism has tried to systematically undermine the power of labour with the myth of out on control unions and bodies in the street.



I don’t deny your point about Labour power. But ‘cultural fluff’ as expressed in all forms of personal advancement is also collectively important. Otherwise the Lawrence report may have concluded that institutional racism merely prevented people from attaining a bit of unimportant ‘cultural fluff’.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Me either.  But I also think it’s unfair to impute a particular meaning to MIB’s words when it’s clear that wasn’t the meaning being invoked.  No matter how much I would personally avoid that phraseology myself.


Not really a question of ascribed meaning; it's a matter of casual usage, innit?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Not really a question of ascribed meaning; it's a matter of casual usage, innit?


Yes, I agree.  If that had been the basis on which it was objected to, I wouldn’t have said owt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I don’t deny your point about Labour power. But ‘cultural fluff’ as expressed in all forms of personal advancement is also collectively important. Otherwise the Lawrence report may have concluded that institutional racism merely prevented people from attaining a bit of unimportant ‘cultural fluff’.


You've been supplied with a lot of evidence that social mobility was high during the 70s, certainly far higher than today, are you still maintaining your claim that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s? 
When in your opinion was social mobility at it's highest? And where is your evidence?


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> You've been supplied with a lot of evidence that social mobility was high during the 70s, certainly far higher than today, are you still maintaining your claim that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?
> When in your opinion was social mobility at it's highest? And where is your evidence?



I dunno about that.

The evidence I've seen is that inequality was at its lowest during this period and that there is a correlation between equality and mobility.

So, whilst it's reasonable to suggest that social mobility might have been at its highest then, but I wouldn't assert it with 100% confidence.

Flicking through Piketty yesterday (flawed as it is) he seems to suggest that wealth/income gaps can narrow without increasing social mobility.

Personally, I would hypothesize that for sections of the population (predominantly the newly created lower m/c) there was greater mobility available because of free University education, expansion of professional occupations etc. But I'd be hesitant to generalise this across society.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

chilango said:


> I dunno about that.
> 
> The evidence I've seen is that inequality was at its lowest during this period and that there is a correlation between equality and mobility.
> 
> ...


Yes, for the 5 - 10% of the population that could access HE following the Robbins report, the late 60's - late 70's must have represented some sort of high water mark for a certain kind of social mobility. Wouldn't like to speculate beyond that for the 90% who didn't/couldn't, though.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not using disparaging remarks about other people's mental health to discedit their opinions are we?



This is pathetic


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Speculation on my part, but maybe the anti-semitism issue has sensitised CLPs to be wary of giving non-members a platform in their meetings etc. Just a thought.



I haven’t asked for a platform in any meeting.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I haven’t asked for a platform in any meeting.


No, but without knowing what you've said to them, I'm speculating about what might explain their reticence. Perhaps CLPs have be warned against letting 'randoms' any access/platform for fear of what their motives may or may not be.
Just speculation, mind.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Actually, to be a tad po-faced here...can't say that I'm at all comfortable with using MH terms like this.



‘Nutter’ is a MH term then is it


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> No, but without knowing what you've said to them, I'm speculating about what might explain their reticence. Perhaps CLPs have be warned against letting 'randoms' any access/platform for fear of what their motives may or may not be.
> Just speculation, mind.



Oh Kay


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ‘Nutter’ is a MH term then is it


A commonly acknowledged derogatory one, yes.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not using disparaging remarks about other people's mental health to discedit their opinions are we?



You just gonna follow me round urban with this stuff aren’t ya


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Oh Kay


You could, of course, join the LP to get access to their meetings/policy making processes.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> A commonly acknowledged derogatory one, yes.



It’s an expression that is 1) rarely used to denote actual MH problems (rather than ‘mad’ political views/conspiracy theories etc); 2) it’s really not that offensive, unless used in the context of care/control (ie on a ward, in an appointment and so on), and certainly it’s less offensive to actual mad people then many ‘legitimate’ terms (including diagnoses);


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> You could, of course, join the LP



I’ll pass on that tempting offer


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It’s an expression that is 1) rarely used to denote actual MH problems (rather than ‘mad’ political views/conspiracy theories etc); 2) it’s really not that offensive, unless used in the context of care/control (ie on a ward, in an appointment and so on), and certainly it’s less offensive to actual mad people then many ‘legitimate’ terms (including diagnoses);


Speaking for others, again?
Never a good look.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’ll pass on that tempting offer


Understandable choice, but you were the person saying that you believed they were significant enough to merit your lobbying them.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Speaking for others, again?
> Never a good look.



You clearly know nothing about us or our lives.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Understandable choice, but you were the person saying that you believed they were significant enough to merit your lobbying them.



Okey doke.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You clearly know nothing about us or our lives.


I'm not talking to "us'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It’s an expression that is 1) rarely used to denote actual MH problems (rather than ‘mad’ political views/conspiracy theories etc); 2) it’s really not that offensive, unless used in the context of care/control (ie on a ward, in an appointment and so on), and certainly it’s less offensive to actual mad people then many ‘legitimate’ terms (including diagnoses);



so you're wrong again


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I'm not talking to "us'.



Quite. You, like your party, has no interest in us. 

Unless you think we can be used to get votes


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 200029
> so you're wrong again



heavy night was it? 

Your screenshot doesn’t demonstrate what you want it to


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

chilango said:


> I dunno about that.
> 
> The evidence I've seen is that inequality was at its lowest during this period and that there is a correlation between equality and mobility.
> 
> So, whilst it's reasonable to suggest that social mobility might have been at its highest then, but I wouldn't assert it with 100% confidence.


Sorry chilango you are not sure about what - that social mobility was higher in the 70s than now? Or that social mobility as at its height in the 70s?
The latter I think there is room for dispute on, the former is IMO pretty much nailed on. I'm not aware of any source that claims otherwise, even the government's own groups agree that social mobility has declined since the 70s.

The only way that you could argue that social mobility is as high or higher now than previously is (as I said above) to remove class from the picture, to go for the sort of post-class waffle that some love. But Mr Moose claims that that is not what he is doing so I don't see how he can square his circle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> heavy night was it?
> 
> Your screenshot doesn’t demonstrate what you want it to





MadeInBedlam said:


> It’s an expression that is 1) rarely used to denote actual MH problems (rather than ‘mad’ political views/conspiracy theories etc)


i think you'll find nutter is frequently used to denote actual mh problems. as per the definition in 3)

as for a heavy night, it's just stupidity to accuse me of drunkeness when it's well known here i'm teetotal


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> you were the person saying that you believed they were significant enough to merit your lobbying them.



To merit me lobbying them eh?

Funnily enough they were quite easy to come across in the lead up to the election. If by ‘lobbying them’ you meant me using the fact they wanted to talk to people as an opportunity to explain what’s happening and ask for assistance and pass over my contact details 

Or are community campaigns things that the LP will do with other members?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find nutter is frequently used to denote actual mh problems. as per the definition in 3)
> 
> as for a heavy night, it's just stupidity to accuse me of drunkeness when it's well known here i'm teetotal



Drunkeness would be the least of your problems 

You googling a word and showing a screenshot. Heavy night of that stuff I’m sure


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Quite. You, like your party, has no interest in us.
> 
> Unless you think we can be used to get votes


That last point is one, of many reasons, why I'm not a member of the LP.
I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree, there.
Unlike yourself, I speak for no-one but myself.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> .
> Unlike yourself, I speak for no-one but myself.



You only need to tell us once


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry chilango you are not sure about what - that social mobility was higher in the 70s than now? Or that social mobility as at its height in the 70s?
> The latter I think there is room for dispute on, the former is IMO pretty much nailed on. I'm not aware of any source that claims otherwise, even the government's own groups agree that social mobility has declined since the 70s.
> 
> The only way that you could argue that social mobility is as high or higher now than previously is (as I said above) to remove class from the picture, to go for the sort of post-class waffle that some love. But Mr Moose claims that that is not what he is doing so I don't see how he can square his circle.



Absolutely, social mobility (in most forms) has declined since the '70s. 

What I'm not sure of is how high or widespread it got then.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You, like your party, has no interest in us.



Probably best for the thread if we ease off this sub-topic, but I would say that making assumptions about the state of/impact of MH on other posters is pretty shabby. Just because folk might not want to discuss it, does not equate to a lack of interest/concern.
Just saying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Drunkeness would be the least of your problems
> 
> You googling a word and showing a screenshot. Heavy night of that stuff I’m sure


i googled nothing


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i googled nothing



That scrapbook of yours not just an ornament.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Probably best for the thread if we ease off this sub-topic, but I would say that making assumptions about the state of/impact of MH on other posters is pretty shabby. Just because folk might not want to discuss it, does not equate to a lack of interest/concern.
> Just saying.



You’re reaching on the MH front, and noticeable how you picked up ‘nutter’ but not all the other everyday terms used by posters on here to denote politics which are based on, or which articulate, a conspiratorial understanding of the world 

Just saying


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

chilango said:


> Absolutely, social mobility (in most forms) has declined since the '70s.
> 
> What I'm not sure of is how high or widespread it got then.


Yes I think we are largely in agreement


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes I think we are largely in agreement


Oh, we are. It's just my area of research so I'm happy to waffle on about it endlessly


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> That scrapbook of yours not just an ornament.


i used a list of databases we have at work, went to the oed, and got it from there. no internet search engine involved.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2020)

E2a: nah fuck it


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry chilango you are not sure about what - that social mobility was higher in the 70s than now? Or that social mobility as at its height in the 70s?
> The latter I think there is room for dispute on, the former is IMO pretty much nailed on. I'm not aware of any source that claims otherwise, even the government's own groups agree that social mobility has declined since the 70s.
> 
> The only way that you could argue that social mobility is as high or higher now than previously is (as I said above) to remove class from the picture, to go for the sort of post-class waffle that some love. But Mr Moose claims that that is not what he is doing so I don't see how he can square his circle.



I’m not sure why you are talking about it as removing class. Class is the essence of mobility as it is about the movement between classes. You seem to be talking about overall class advancement at times, which is maybe a better thing.

I find it hard to believe that in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was more likely that a working class person would become part of managment, the judiciary, on a board, set up their own business etc than more recently. It was certainly more likely than it was in the 20s, 30s and 40s so if it is just increase in rate, maybe. But I can’t see how it is definitively so. It could not have been for women and seems unlikely for people from BAME background given the well documented barriers to their personal and collective advancement. Over the last decade may be a different story.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i used a list of databases we have at work, went to the oed, and got it from there. no internet search engine involved.



It’s good to keep busy


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 28, 2020)

Easter 2046. The coronavirus and lethal supermutations, resistant to all pharmaceutical innovations, have wiped out 99% of the world's population, aided by an astonishing twinned temperature heating and ininudation of much of the East Coast from Whitby south to Canvey island . Rats, cockroaches and vermin have begun to devour the entropic remains of what once was Britain's thriving urban culture. The surviving 1% the elite and super rich, control the governable parts of the planet from virus proof sterile underground bunkers in Utah and Nevada, and are little interested in the islands that used to be known as Britain.

It's remarkable therefore that, even in such end times and in conditions of species extinction, that Rebecca Long-Baily, Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer are still on the road taking questions from the seventeen members of the Labour Party left in existence. In an abandoned Carphone Warehouse on the outskirts of a town that used to be known as Crewe (subsequently rechristened Corona SuperPlus45NorthWest), and with remarkable cheerfulness, they insist to a ravaged, throat-rattly audience that lessons must be learned from the catastrophic election defeat of 2019, in order to ensure that a healthy grassroots infrastructure is in place to take a genuine message of hope to a post-quarantine electorate, what's left of them. 

The three candidates are in great humour and are looking forward with genuine enthusiasm to the next hustings in Submerged Former Conurbation 231East (formerly Kingston upon Hull). In a rare moment of discord, Long-Bailey insisted that the approach of the late Jeremy Corbyn (missing, presumed dead in the ongoing war of all against all in Polenta Fields, North London) still resonated in post-apocalyptic times, whilst both Nandy and Starmer countered that only a realistic policy that could be explained patiently through an industrial facemask to a dying postal voter really offered the hope that everyone was yearning for so much (cont'd 2147AD)


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2020)

steeplejack said:


> Polenta Fields


lives in islington


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I’m not sure why you are talking about it as removing class. Class is the essence of mobility as it is about the movement between classes. You seem to be talking about overall class advancement at times, which is maybe a better thing.


I talking about you removing class as that is the only way you can claim the social mobility has not dropped (to effectively nothing) from the 70s. You've been supplied with a whole load of sources that show that this is true.


Mr Moose said:


> I find it hard to believe that in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was more likely that a working class person would become part of managment, the judiciary, on a board, set up their own business etc than more recently.


Right so in contrast to the large amount of evidence you've been provided with we have your prejudices.
I'll ask again do you still maintain that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?



> Inequality is still deeply entrenched in Britain: there is a persistent gap in early literacy;
> the attainment gap at the end of secondary school has hardly shifted since 2014 and the better off are nearly 80 per cent more likely to end up in a professional job than those from a working-class background.
> Our sixth State of the Nation report, and first since our 12 new commissioners were appointed last year, lays bare the stark fact that social mobility has stagnated over the last four years at virtually all stages from birth to work.


Not some radical socialist group - the government's own body.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I talking about you removing class as that is the only way you can claim the social mobility has not dropped (to effectively nothing) from the 70s. You've been supplied with a whole load of sources that show that this is true.
> Right so in contrast to the large amount of evidence you've been provided with we have your prejudices.
> I'll ask again do you still maintain that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?
> 
> ...



That’s the last four years, not the last sixty.

Drop your prejudices and actually engage with what I have written, rather than fantasise about what I mean or prefer.

We got into this by talking about people’s nostalgia for the time. Nostalgia is generally pretty false and it’s reasonable to talk about the good and the bad. I wouldn’t argue that many people’s horizons are pretty limited right now by access to education, experience and wealth. But let’s not pretend they were not also limited in those earlier decades by rigid social codes that openly discriminated.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> That’s the last four years, not the last sixty.
> 
> Drop your prejudices and actually engage with what I have written, rather than fantasise about what I mean or prefer.
> 
> We got into this by talking about people’s nostalgia for the time. Nostalgia is generally pretty false and it’s reasonable to talk about the good and the bad. I wouldn’t argue that many people’s horizons are pretty limited right now by access to education, experience and wealth. But let’s not pretend they were not also limited in those earlier decades by rigid social codes that openly discriminated.


Have you even read it? It builds on previous studies that show that social mobility has decreased since the 70s/80s. 
We got into this via your evidence free dismissal of the real social mobility that occurred during the 70s. 
For you to talk about prejudices when you've not supplied a single piece of evidence for any of your claims (and for the third time - are you still claiming that was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?) when I and others have supplied significant pieces of evidence that make it clear that social mobility has declined is fucking ludicrous. 

Like with the far right you don't have a clue what you are talking about - which is fine but then don't pretend that you are talking anything but your own prejudices.


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

One reference (I'm doing some digging)



> Goldthorpe and Mills describe how, despite growth in social mobility in the middle of the past century, there has been no change since the early 1970s, with the exception of absolute class mobility for women. Blanden and Machin, focussing on relative income mobility, identify a recent plateauing, following decades of decline.


 (Metcalf, 2008)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

Friday eve post.
So, do we think Starmer will ask RLB to be Shad. Chancellor (obvious choice?) or....as some bloke down the pub told me the other day (to put £ on   ) he'll make Ed Miliband chancellor.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

There's a debate that can be had about when exactly social mobility peaked, there's a debate that can be had about the level of decrease, there's even a very strong argument about whether social mobility is a useful or progressive (hate that word but can't think of another at the moment) concept.

But there should be no debate that (1) there was social mobility in the 70s and (2) that social mobility has since declined
(At least not unless you go for the class free position)

TUC document


> As Blanden et al’s research shows, relative income mobility in the UK has become worse in recent decades, with individuals’ adult incomes increasingly likely to be related to those of their parents. At the same time, inequality has also increased, as the gaps between those on higher and lower incomes have grown. The fact that these trends are running in parallel is a real concern, because as inequality grows the impacts of low social mobility on life changes are exacerbated. It also seems that growing inequality could be reducing relative income mobility, by making it harder for those who are on lower incomes to accrue the advantages that would enable them to secure better jobs and opportunities in the future. The crucial questions are why is it like this, and what can we do to change it?


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

> Analyses trends in intergenerational class mobility in Britain between the early   1970s and the early 1990s on the basis of data from the General Household   Survey. Over this period there was little change in total mobility rates. Rates of   upward mobility, if anything, fell while rates of downward mobility rose–in   contrast to the situation in the middle decades of the twentieth century when   rising rates of upward mobility were the salient feature. However, there is   continuity in that relative rates of mobility, indicating the level of social fluidity,   remain little altered


 (Goldthorpe, 2004)


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

chilango said:


> (Goldthorpe, 2004)





> If late twentieth-century Britain   was in fact becoming a more mobile society, as some commentators have   claimed (e.g. Giddens     1994  : 143–4), then this was only in the sense of downward   rather than upward movement within the class structure becoming more   frequent.


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

> We   have been unable to present any compelling evidence of a general increase in   social fluidity within the British class structure over the last decades of the   twentieth century, yet the whole of the second half of the century saw a steady   expansion in educational provision that allowed children of all class   backgrounds   alike to raise their average levels of educational attainment.


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

> As regards absolute mobility rates, we find that the increase in the   total mobility rate that was indicated for men by the OMS of 1972, and   then apparently confirmed and extended to women by earlier BGES-     based findings, has not in fact been sustained. Over the period covered   by   our analyses, the total mobility rate for men is remarkably flat and for   women falls somewhat. Among men, the previously rising trend in   upward mobility levelled out, and, if anything, started to decline, while   the previously decreasing rate of downward mobility levelled out or, if   anything, increased.


----------



## chilango (Feb 28, 2020)

> As regards relative mobility rates, we find overall little compelling   evidence of these rates changing in a way indicative of increased—or   decreased—fluidity within the British class structure.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Friday eve post.
> So, do we think Starmer will ask RLB to be Shad. Chancellor (obvious choice?) or....as some bloke down the pub told me the other day (to put £ on   ) he'll make Ed Miliband chancellor.



Not a chance he'll make long bailey the shadow chancellor. 

The miliband thing is a decent shout, might see if I can get odds on that


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not a chance he'll make long bailey the shadow chancellor.
> 
> The miliband thing is a decent shout, might see if I can get odds on that


If it helps...bloke has been right about a couple of matters political!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Friday eve post.
> So, do we think Starmer will ask RLB to be Shad. Chancellor (obvious choice?) or....as some bloke down the pub told me the other day (to put £ on   ) he'll make Ed Miliband chancellor.



The New Statesman has been running this line. On the basis that only 4 labour politicians are serious contenders with the ability to do the job - EM, RLB, Yvette Cooper and McDonnell. 

We can rule McDonnell out as he’s off. Yvette Cooper would be a massive provocation.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The New Statesman has been running this line. On the basis that only 4 labour politicians are serious contenders with the ability to do the job - EM, RLB, Yvette Cooper and McDonnell.
> 
> We can rule McDonnell out as he’s off. Yvette Cooper would be a massive provocation.


There's Reynolds.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> There's Reynolds.



Emma Reynolds? She lost her seat.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Emma Reynolds? She lost her seat.


Nah, this fella


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Nah, this fella



Never heard of him.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 28, 2020)

I'd forgotten about james purnell the new labour cunt


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'd forgotten about james purnell the new labour cunt



He's long gone. Jumped ship in a failed coup attempt against Miliband if memory serves.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

What are posters shadow cabinet predictions then?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Never heard of him.


Perfect material, then.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 28, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's long gone. Jumped ship in a failed coup attempt against Miliband if memory serves.



Yeah I know, he went to bbc didn't he, I'd just forgotten he existed. It was unpleasant to be reminded


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2020)

Nia Griffiths might keep Defence - she was pretty good, had a decent grasp of the big strategic stuff and got the detail spent lots of time in eastern Europe and knows, and shares the concerns of, the government's over there. She's (economically and socially) on the left of the party, but was is a vociferous opponent of Corbyns' _Russia First _foreign and defence policy.

Fell out with him - actually, I think she couldn't stand him from Day 1 - over Salisbury and anti-Semitism, at which point she was silenced.

Starmer may give defence to Thornberry however - it's a big job, she can do detail, and it keeps her away from anything brexity...


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

I think Starmer will have to offer something to Nandy and Long-Bailey but can't see it being anything big. Maybe Environment for RLB - connects with the green new deal - but basically minor.

Abbott obviously gone. Maybe Cooper at Home? There's been some journalist chatter about that cunt Reeves coming back

EDIT: The names suggested rather illustrate where Starmer is on the political landscape.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2020)

Communities and LG for Nandy?

DEFRA might be a decent job for RLB, it's _green, _and the post-brexit land use thing is going to be detail heavy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Have you even read it? It builds on previous studies that show that social mobility has decreased since the 70s/80s.
> We got into this via your evidence free dismissal of the real social mobility that occurred during the 70s.
> For you to talk about prejudices when you've not supplied a single piece of evidence for any of your claims (and for the third time - are you still claiming that was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?) when I and others have supplied significant pieces of evidence that make it clear that social mobility has declined is fucking ludicrous.
> 
> Like with the far right you don't have a clue what you are talking about - which is fine but then don't pretend that you are talking anything but your own prejudices.



What on Earth are you wittering on about the far right for?

One day I hope we’ll have a conversation where you try to understand an alternate POV without feeling the need to win as priority number one.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> One day I hope we’ll have a conversation where you try to understand an alternate POV without feeling the need to win as priority number one.


I absolutely understand your view - "there was almost no social mobility" - is not a hard concept to grasp. I just dismiss it as it is clearly false.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

i can see Keeley staying on in her role. Who else would do it?

Marsha De-Cordova might stay on as shadow disability minister. From all I’ve seen she’s a good advocate on her brief, but also politically naive. I would imagine her links to corbyn/RLB wouldn’t appeal to starmer


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 28, 2020)

Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts


You think that will happen?
I think more than a few have invested so much that they will not be able to break away (we already have people defending Labour councils attacking workers for example). Which was always the danger. In theory I can understand the line - the LP is the best tool to advance class interests - in practice it's been shown time and time again that people get swallowed by the party.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 28, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> I find it hard to believe that in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was more likely that a working class person would become part of managment, the judiciary, on a board, set up their own business etc than more recently.


Social mobility in the 60s & 70s wasn't about working class people getting jobs as judges or on the boards of companies. Those jobs were still reserved for the upper middle/upper class. But it was the time of big state owned companies, jobs for life and unionised manufacturing in the UK. A young working class lad (and it probably would be a man - women were still mostly secretaries or teachers or staying home to bring up the kids) could get a low level job in a big company and over the years get promoted to middle management, moving to the lower middle class. Big companies might pay for them to get a degree (maybe through the open university) to skill them up. It was still possible to get on the housing ladder.

These days jobs for life are mostly a thing of the past, so the possibility for that advancement is reduced. Unions are eviscerated and companies don't put the money into developing staff. Shit, most places are quite happy to get rid of long term staff to replace them with younger, cheaper people. Many big industries have disappeared overseas. There aren't the same opportunities for social mobility as there used to be.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 28, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts


All cats are grey


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

This is significant stuff. Leaving aside the guff about Starmer being the British Sanders (I mean, seriously) this is the key section;

“Starmer says he is not just in the business of uniting a fractured party at Westminster, but broadening its base in the country. Cultivating new support across class and ethnic divides has put Sanders on the road to the Democratic nomination, and Starmer believes that the same approach can put Labour back on the path to power: keep left, rebuild a diverse coalition of voters, and look beyond the red wall”

If anyone on here continues to harbour any doubts about where Starmer wants to take Labour - down the route of socialism without the working class, the restoration of the primacy of the narrating class in policy and cultural terms, to marginalise unions, to double down on meritocracy sheened in faux left language - then here it is.









						Long-Bailey’s shift to attack mode shows what awaits Starmer if he wins | Patrick Maguire
					

Keir Starmer wants to emulate Bernie Sanders by building a diverse coalition. But it won’t be easy, says political correspondent Patrick Maguire




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts



Fair point, but I think everyone has already agreed this thread is academic.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Having recently finished Wood's _Retreat from Class_ (which I can strongly recommend) I see a number of parallels with then (1986) - the removal of class, or at least it's compression to something very different, so that "socialism" can be equated with social democracy, "radical democracy" or "progressivism". You can absolutely see many of the same steps being repeated.



			
				Wood said:
			
		

> the NTS proposes that, because there is no necessary correspondence between economics and politics, the working class can have no privileged position in the struggle for socialism. Instead, a socialist movement can be constructed by ideological and political means which are relatively (absolutely?) autonomous from economic class conditions, motivated not by the crude material interests of class but by the rational appeal of ‘universal human goods’ and the reasonableness of the socialist order


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

Spandex said:


> Social mobility in the 60s & 70s wasn't about working class people getting jobs as judges or on the boards of companies. Those jobs were still reserved for the upper middle/upper class. But it was the time of big state owned companies, jobs for life and unionised manufacturing in the UK. A young working class lad (and it probably would be a man - women were still mostly secretaries or teachers or staying home to bring up the kids) could get a low level job in a big company and over the years get promoted to middle management, moving to the lower middle class. Big companies might pay for them to get a degree (maybe through the open university) to skill them up. It was still possible to get on the housing ladder.
> 
> These days jobs for life are mostly a thing of the past, so the possibility for that advancement is reduced. Unions are eviscerated and companies don't put the money into developing staff. Shit, most places are quite happy to get rid of long term staff to replace them with younger, cheaper people. Many big industries have disappeared overseas. There aren't the same opportunities for social mobility as there used to be.



One of the most notable changes in this period was the rapid increase of women into the workforce with battles around equal pay and eventual legislation on it. As a marker of social mobility and freedom I can’t think of a better example in this period.

The other point I’d make is that it _was_ possible for working class people to move upwards. In every aspect of society - economic, culture, art and politics we see this.

What was remarkable about the period was that these changes were taking place alongside rising wages, narrowing levels of inequality and growing disposable income levels. However, the 70’s is also the decade when the tensions and contradictions of the post war period bubble over


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> You think that will happen?
> I think more than a few have invested so much that they will not be able to break away (we already have people defending Labour councils attacking workers for example). Which was always the danger. In theory I can understand the line - the LP is the best tool to advance class interests - in practice it's been shown time and time again that people get swallowed by the party.



What role do you think the Labour Party has played in the (resistance to) the ongoing long term (and horrific) psychiatric institutionalisation? Or on the attacks on those reliant on social security? Or the ever increasing Thatcherite bullshit in the NHS?

I mean their overall record is crap, but it’s accurate to say the LP has done nothing good in these areas?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Having recently finished Wood's _Retreat from Class_ (which I can strongly recommend) I see a number of parallels with then (1986) - the removal of class, or at least it's compression to something very different, so that "socialism" can be equated with social democracy, "radical democracy" or "progressivism". You can absolutely see many of the same steps being repeated.



Thanks for the insight/excerpt 

Don’t see corbynism as being about appealing to universality though (apart from it’s rhetoric)


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

It feels a bit late 1980s in a desperate eurocom/desperate and angry tankie sense. 

Corbyn’s win in 2015, and the 2016 brexit vote - after 4 decades of neoliberalism - brought together a strange set of coalitions on the left.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Having recently finished Wood's _Retreat from Class_ (which I can strongly recommend) I see a number of parallels with then (1986) - the removal of class, or at least it's compression to something very different, so that "socialism" can be equated with social democracy, "radical democracy" or "progressivism". You can absolutely see many of the same steps being repeated.



That quote from Wood is absolutely on the money. I think it’s exactly where Starmer and Mason and others are seeking to move Labour. It’s a very dangerous moment and given his likely victory one which deserves a serious debate on here


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Socialism (or whatever) as an identity. Or you’re a traitor.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Socialism (or whatever) as an identity. Or you’re a traitor.



It’s partly that. But it’s more about erasing class from the picture - for poltocal and psephological reasons


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I mean their overall record is crap, but it’s accurate to say the LP has done nothing good in these areas?


I think the good the LP (or any political party) has done in those areas arises not from the LP but from the working class. The LP is a very flawed tool, IMO so flawed that people would be better off not involving themselves with it, but in the past it has been used as a tool by the working class to advance their interests and may still be used occasionally in that way today. I'm not sure how good an answer that is. I'll see if I can give something clearer tomorrow when I'm a bit brighter.


MadeInBedlam said:


> Don’t see corbynism as being about appealing to universality though (apart from it’s rhetoric)


Maybe not but I think there's a definite element of "socialism" as a sort of identity, a mental construct (or discourse as the new true socialists would have e put it) rather than something related to material interests. All the stuff about the new young generation that is being hyped fits in here.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That quote from Wood is absolutely on the money. I think it’s exactly where Starmer and Mason and others are seeking to move Labour. It’s a very dangerous moment and given his likely victory one which deserves a serious debate on here



Shouldn’t we start from not knowing whether the labour leadership stuff is any danger/opportunity in class struggle? (eg: Is a Labour Party _as it should be_ something we should work towards? What would this look like?)


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It’s partly that. But it’s more about erasing class from the picture - for poltocal and psephological reasons



Part and parcel of the same phenomenon


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

The relationship between ‘The disabled peoples movement’ and the Labour Party over the last 5 years has been particularly damaging (for pretty much everyone)


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Don't just want to quote the whole of the book but I think it probably is worth quoting the propositions Wood summaries that indicate the trend she opposes

1) The working class has not, as Marx expected, produced a revolutionary movement. That is, its economic situation has not given rise to what was thought to be an appropriate corresponding political force.
2) This reflects the fact that there is no necessary correspondence between economics and politics in general. Any relation between class and politics is contingent. In other words, ideology and politics are (relatively? absolutely?) autonomous from economic (class) relations; and there are no such things as ‘economic’ class interests that can be translated a posteriori into political terms.
3) More particularly, these propositions mean that there is no necessary or privileged relation between the working class and socialism, and indeed that the working class has no ‘fundamental interest’ in socialism.
4) Therefore, the formation of a socialist movement is in principle independent of class, and a socialist politics can be constructed that is more or less autonomous from economic (class) conditions. This means two things in particular:
5) A political force can be constituted and organized on the ideological and political planes, constructed out of various ‘popular’ elements which can be bound together and motivated by purely ideological and political means, irrespective of the class connections or oppositions among them.
6) The appropriate objectives of socialism are universal human goals which transcend class, rather than narrow material goals defined in terms of class interests. These objectives can be addressed, on the autonomous ideological and political planes, to various kinds of people, irrespective of their material class situations.
7) In particular, the struggle for socialism can be conceived as a plurality of ‘democratic’ struggles, bringing together a variety of resistances to many forms of inequality and oppression. In fact, it may even be possible to replace the concept of socialism with the notion of ‘radical democracy’. Socialism is a more or less natural extension of liberal democracy; or at any rate ‘democracy’ as it exists, albeit in a limited form, in advanced capitalist societies is in principle ‘indeterminate’ and capable of extension to socialist democracy.
8) Some types of people are more susceptible than others to the universalist and rational discourse of socialism, more capable of commitment to universal human goals as distinct from narrow material – or what Bentham used to call ‘sinister’ – interests; and these form the natural constituency of the socialist movement.

Lots of those principles in evidence today.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Shouldn’t we start from not knowing whether the labour leadership stuff is any danger/opportunity in class struggle? (eg: Is a Labour Party _as it should be_ something we should work towards? What would this look like?)



I don’t think so. Firstly, historically, the LP has always been an uneasy alliance between middle class liberals and the organised working class. I don’t believe it’s possible to achieve a commonality of interests on the basis of the completely different collective _experience_ of these two groups.

Second, Labourism is about top down solutions delivered, ultimately, by politicians with their supporters passively cheering them on.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

‘Disability activists’ (and to a certain extent ‘mental health activists’ - whatever that means) put ridiculous amounts of energy and trust into campaigning for labour (and on complaining that labour weren’t listening to them) during the Corbyn era. 

I can’t see what was gained, and the spread of this weird ‘it’s the disabled or the Jews; pick a side’ bullshit helped to fuck a lot up in both disability and wider labour politics. 

Going on about ‘the vulnerable disabled’ are whilst exploiting them for votes and free labour, and using their lives to spread Vanessa Beeley/Grayzone level poison (or at times literally promoting such filth). Vote labour.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 28, 2020)

Excellent. Thanks a lot redsquirrel 

I’ve just ordered the book.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Is any of this stuff (eg retreat from class) on audiobook (or whatever)?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't just want to quote the whole of the book but I think it probably is worth quoting the propositions Wood summaries that indicate the trend she opposes
> 
> 1) The working class has not, as Marx expected, produced a revolutionary movement. That is, its economic situation has not given rise to what was thought to be an appropriate corresponding political force.
> 2) This reflects the fact that there is no necessary correspondence between economics and politics in general. Any relation between class and politics is contingent. In other words, ideology and politics are (relatively? absolutely?) autonomous from economic (class) relations; and there are no such things as ‘economic’ class interests that can be translated a posteriori into political terms.
> ...



Cheers


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 28, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent. Thanks a lot redsquirrel
> 
> I’ve just ordered the book.


Like everything of Wood's that I've read it is absolutely excellent. Clear and brilliantly argued.


MadeInBedlam said:


> Is any of this stuff (eg retreat from class) on audiobook (or whatever)?


I've not seen it available on audiobook but butchersapron posted links to lots of Wood's work on this thread if that is any use?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Like everything of Wood's that I've read it is absolutely excellent. Clear and brilliantly argued.
> 
> I've not seen it available on audiobook but butchersapron posted links to lots of Wood's work on this thread if that is any use?



Ta, I’ll have a look.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Googled her to find lectures of hers to listen to. 

Ended up hearing Paul Mason demonstrating her points


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Friday eve post.
> So, do we think Starmer will ask RLB to be Shad. Chancellor (obvious choice?) or....as some bloke down the pub told me the other day (to put £ on   ) he'll make Ed Miliband chancellor.


I reckon he’ll go for anneliese Dodds.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 28, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I think Starmer will have to offer something to Nandy and Long-Bailey but can't see it being anything big. Maybe Environment for RLB - connects with the green new deal - but basically minor.
> 
> Abbott obviously gone. Maybe Cooper at Home? There's been some journalist chatter about that cunt Reeves coming back
> 
> EDIT: The names suggested rather illustrate where Starmer is on the political landscape.


Dodds - chancellor
Nandy - Home Secretary
Cooper - somewhere? Treasury?
Rlb - stays at business?
Miliband - transport

🤔


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I reckon he’ll go for anneliese Dodds.


Interesting call.
Not masses of economics in her background? (I know she did PPE, but there's not always a lot of econ in that)


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Interesting call.
> Not masses of economics in her background? (I know she did PPE, but there's not always a lot of econ in that)


True... she has done shadow treasury stuff though.
People are saying cooper but wouldn’t she be a bit too... divisive?


----------



## Humberto (Feb 28, 2020)

Lammy any kind of a look in do you reckon?


----------



## Humberto (Feb 28, 2020)

Benn?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> True... she has done shadow treasury stuff though.
> People are saying cooper but wouldn’t she be a bit too... divisive?


If Starmer were feeling secure enough to re-introduce Cooper, the obvious role would be Home Sec, no?
Can't see that going to Nandy. He's more likely to give her some bullshit role like Communities or summat. Maybe he'll even feel like doing a Johnson:Hunt move and freeze out the losers?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> If Starmer were feeling secure enough to re-introduce Cooper, the obvious role would be Home Sec, no?
> Can't see that going to Nandy. He's more likely to give her some bullshit role like Communities or summat. Maybe he'll even feel like doing a Johnson:Hunt move and freeze out the losers?


Why do you think nandy won’t be shadow Home Secretary? I think she’d be good? I reckon she’ll get a decent shadow cabinet position anyway.  RLB (hopefully?) won’t.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 28, 2020)

Maybe Nandy in transport..


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Why do you think nandy won’t be shadow Home Secretary? I think she’d be good? I reckon she’ll get a decent shadow cabinet position anyway.  RLB (hopefully?) won’t.


She's had minor roles in Charity & Energy and major roles in treachery. What signals her as a good HS?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> She's had minor roles in Charity & Energy and major roles in treachery. What signals her as a good HS?


Major roles in treachery. Ha ha. I guess because she impressed at the hustings.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

Oh, are you suggesting HS because of her Glasman persuasion?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> i can see Keeley staying on in her role. Who else would do it?
> 
> Marsha De-Cordova might stay on as shadow disability minister. From all I’ve seen she’s a good advocate on her brief, but also politically naive. I would imagine her links to corbyn/RLB wouldn’t appeal to starmer



Thoughts treelover?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2020)

Cooper could be problematic in terms of within the party given her unrelenting hostility towards Corbyn and her links to the _ancient regime_, but she would be almost embarrassingly effective against the half-wit Patel - and while Labour does need to do long term stuff within the party and on the ground, it also needs to improve its morale in parliament and to get decent headlines in the media, a strong performer like Cooper would at least provide some easy, quick wins.

upsides and downsides, as with most things...


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Oh, are you suggesting HS because of her Glasman persuasion?



When was the last time nandy seemed persuaded by glassman? When she signed the LGBT pledge? Or when the hip young students from JLM fell in love with her?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Cooper could be problematic in terms of within the party given her unrelenting hostility towards Corbyn and her links to the _ancient regime_, but she would be almost embarrassingly effective against the half-wit Patel - and while Labour does need to do long term stuff within the party and on the ground, it also needs to improve its morale in parliament and to get decent headlines in the media, a strong performer like Cooper would at least provide some easy, quick wins.
> 
> upsides and downsides, as with most things...



Wasn’t that one of starmers apparent selling points? He’d (allegedly) be the best to effectively challenge from opposition, within parliament?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> When was the last time nandy seemed persuaded by glassman? When she signed the LGBT pledge? Or when the hip young students from JLM fell in love with her?


Yeah, probably never, eh?
Just a coincidence that BL folk are leading her campaign.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, probably never, eh?
> Just a coincidence that BL folk are leading her campaign.



Who said never? And who said that she has no links with blue labour. 

She’s shifted culturally away from Glassman and BL (hence the point about the pledges, and her appeal to very non-blue labour groups). 

Was she ever in line with Glassmans (crap) views on the NHS/social security?

For someone that prides themselves in focussing on the argument, yours is a strange post.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

The students are with Nandy (or Starmer to a lesser extent). 

Don’t think it was Glassman’s oeuvre which persuaded them


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Oh, are you suggesting HS because of her Glasman persuasion?


I’ll be completely honest - I don’t know what this means


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who said never? And who said that she has no links with blue labour.
> 
> She’s shifted culturally away from Glassman and BL (hence the point about the pledges, and her appeal to very non-blue labour groups).
> 
> ...


I accept that it's difficult to discern Nandy's ideological positions from her public utterances during the Leadership campaign; her views can change with the hour and frequently offer contradictory positions.
What is known is that she has been (& is) close to some key people from the BL orbit, and they are not leading her campaign without good cause.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The students are with Nandy (or Starmer to a lesser extent).
> 
> Don’t think it was Glassman’s oeuvre which persuaded them


Maybe she's a good politician?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I accept that it's difficult to discern Nandy's ideological positions from her public utterances during the Leadership campaign; her views can change with the hour and frequently offer contradictory positions.
> What is known is that she has been (& is) close to some key people from the BL orbit, and they are not leading her campaign without good cause.



Who are those from the BL orbit leading her campaign?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Maybe she's a good politician?



She evidently is. Not a high bar mind


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The students are with Nandy (or Starmer to a lesser extent).
> 
> Don’t think it was Glassman’s oeuvre which persuaded them


'Culturally conservative' Blue Labour reports rise in followers since election


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> 'Culturally conservative' Blue Labour reports rise in followers since election



Yes everyone remembers that, but what’s that got to do with a load of distinctly culturally liberal people following Nandy?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes everyone remembers that, but what’s that got to do with a load of distinctly culturally liberal people following Nandy?


"a load"?
Maybe they're not so good at politics?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> "a load"?
> Maybe they're not so good at politics?



Who, JLM? No, of course they’re not (or at least not in anything beyond (correctly) taking labour antisemitism seriously) What’s your point? 

You insinuated that fakeplasticgirl interest in Nandy was Nandy’s links with glassman/BL.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Btw Glassman was far more positive about Corbyn than many would now like to admit. 

He is a ‘culturally conservative’ Jew after all


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who, JLM? No, of course they’re not (or at least not in anything beyond (correctly) taking labour antisemitism seriously) What’s your point?
> 
> You insinuated that fakeplasticgirl interest in Nandy was Nandy’s links with glassman/BL.


Maybe these 'cultural liberals' you see lining up to support Nandy have forgotten that she was prepared to share a BL platform with Steven Woolfe?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Maybe these 'cultural liberals' you see lining up to support Nandy have forgotten that she was prepared to share a BL platform with Steven Woolfe?



Maybe a group of often well-meaning but almost always deeply insulated university politics people would have no idea who Steven Woolfe is?

Happy to be corrected but I don’t see the young-Nandyites being up for defending Charedi faith schools


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Maybe a group of often well-meaning but almost always deeply insulated university politics people would have no idea who Steven Woolfe is?
> 
> Happy to be corrected but I don’t see the young-Nandyites being up for defending Charedi faith schools


Which rather suggests that attempting to define the ideological orientation of a candidate by the stripe of some of their supporters is not particularly reliable.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Which rather suggests that attempting to define the ideological orientation of a candidate by the stripe of some of their supporters is not particularly reliable.



Who is attempting this? You brought up her appeal. Do you think understanding who she is appealing to has no value in understanding her trajectory? Or do you think it’s just old Maurice pulling the strings?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is attempting this? You brought up her appeal. Do you think understanding who she is appealing to has no value in understanding her trajectory? Or do you think it’s just old Maurice pulling the strings?





MadeInBedlam said:


> Or when the hip young students from JLM fell in love with her?





MadeInBedlam said:


> She’s shifted culturally away from Glassman and BL (hence the point about the pledges, and her appeal to very non-blue labour groups).





MadeInBedlam said:


> The students are with Nandy (or Starmer to a lesser extent).





MadeInBedlam said:


> what’s that got to do with a load of distinctly culturally liberal people following Nandy?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Oh, are you suggesting HS because of her Glasman persuasion?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

You reckon there’s a blue labour infiltration of urban brogdale?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who are those from the BL orbit leading her campaign?



?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Btw Glassman was far more positive about Corbyn than many would now like to admit.
> 
> He is a ‘culturally conservative’ Jew after all



Was he? Not doubting you but he advised May (well Nick Timothy) in run up to '17 election hence all that workers manifesto/tanks on labour's lawn nonsense for about five minutes until everybody realised what a bag of shit the manifesto was. 

Re: Nandy and BL. I don't think Nandy has ever been BL, but she has won the support of that faction - I think cos of her grasp of brexit really (which I also think was the only issue over which Glasman/BL showed any warmth to corbyn & co until they fully capitulated to the larger posh liberal faction). It is hard to get to grips with exactly what Nandy's politics are but imo she's pretty bog standard soft left and would be an ed miliband - although of course was a fair bit of blue labour in his era


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 28, 2020)

Also I will lol if starmer wins and puts cooper on the front bench with the masonites and other 'lefts' of that ilk tied to the project. Fucking cooper.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

I wouldn’t have thought glassman did much to actually help Corbyn, but he’s never been an anti-Corbynist, and has been conciliatory over AS (Nandy has been far more ‘treacherous’ than Glasman). 

Glasman is a smug fuck mind


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Does MG’s thing that the NHS was a ‘mistake’ have any reflection in Nandy’s politics? Or his praise for west Germany social democracy?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 28, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Does MG’s thing that the NHS was a ‘mistake’ have any reflection in Nandy’s politics? Or his praise for west Germany social democracy?



Its only my impression of her but I don't think she's tied in with wider BL politics at all (which tbh is pretty wide anyway - glasman has his own weird politics and a crowd around him but other BL types can be quite different, just with a common trend of wanting to appeal to w/c base with left economics without the left culture stuff) and has been quite careful to keep at arms length. My view is they've swung in behind nandy because she's less of a dick on brexit and is from their view the best of the bunch


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Maybe these 'cultural liberals' you see lining up to support Nandy have forgotten that she was prepared to share a BL platform with Steven Woolfe?


Knew  , as in used to see him in pubs/avoid like the plague/dont look him in the eye/but get stuck with him if he recognised you ,  Wolfe's father in the 80/90s absolute violent  nutter with a rumoured interest in ahem younger men


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

Glassman is some grumpy old Jewish dad who moans that he can’t make sexist jokes _in his own home_. 

I doubt there’s many Glassman fans here


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 28, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> nutter



MENTAL HEALTH KLAXON!! brogdale


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Its only my impression of her but I don't think she's tied in with wider BL politics at all (which tbh is pretty wide anyway - glasman has his own weird politics and a crowd around him but other BL types can be quite different, just with a common trend of wanting to appeal to w/c base with left economics without the left culture stuff) and has been quite careful to keep at arms length. My view is they've swung in behind nandy because she's less of a dick on brexit and is from their view the best of the bunch


I think Nandy’s Interest in, connections with and some common ground with BL run a bit wider than and pre-date Brexit. After all the infamous BL conference ( to which Woolfe was invited, but in the end had to pull out of) was 2016.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I think Nandy’s Interest in, connections with and some common ground with BL run a bit wider than and pre-date Brexit. After all the infamous BL conference ( to which Woolfe was invited, but in the end had to pull out of) was 2016.
> View attachment 200103



Yeah that was post referendum (also source for that screenshot is errr interesting). 

I think she courted BL and they courted her and there is no doubt that the above is a shameful list to be on. Goodhart is a full on racist horrible cunt now, Liddle, Woolfe, Fox. Grim. Can't stand BL #2 rowenna davis either. But can't assume everybody on that is a BL supporter, eg nora mulready and rob ford are full on blairite ultras (mulready is a danger on her blair obsession, if I was him I'd be concerned) and not natural BL bedfellows


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 29, 2020)

Anyway who knows, maybe nandy is closer to blue labour glasman wing politically, it really is hard to tell with her, for the most natural communicator of the three she's the most coy/ambiguous on her actual politics. I still think she's really just a dreary soft left type.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 29, 2020)

keir starmer's chances on winning?

he's a'ming'/Farron move. appears credible to the bubble, offers nothing.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah that was post referendum (also source for that screenshot is errr interesting).
> 
> I think she courted BL and they courted her and there is no doubt that the above is a shameful list to be on. Goodhart is a full on racist horrible cunt now, Liddle, Woolfe, Fox. Grim. Can't stand BL #2 rowenna davis either. But can't assume everybody on that is a BL supporter, eg nora mulready and rob ford are full on blairite ultras (mulready is a danger on her blair obsession, if I was him I'd be concerned) and not natural BL bedfellows



I don’t really know if BL ever did/does have formal supporters/members,but as you say Nandy has courted them & some key BL players are embedded in her campaign team.
Screenshot was lifted fromSkwarkbox


----------



## Humberto (Feb 29, 2020)

Westminster is a fucking shit-show anyway. Start there.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 29, 2020)

cos play though


----------



## yield (Feb 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I think Nandy’s Interest in, connections with and some common ground with BL run a bit wider than and pre-date Brexit. After all the infamous BL conference ( to which Woolfe was invited, but in the end had to pull out of) was 2016.
> View attachment 200103


I've no skin in the game. But Hell a plague on both their houses. That's terrible. 

The parliamentary road to socialism aye. So grubby


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I don’t really know if BL ever did/does have formal supporters/members,but as you say Nandy has courted them & some key BL players are embedded in her campaign team.
> Screenshot was lifted fromSkwarkbox



Yeah I knew where screenshot was from, I'd seen it on a google image search a bit earlier, that's what I meant. 

Yeah fair enough, there obviously is cross over between nandy and BL


----------



## Humberto (Feb 29, 2020)

I've rinsed my sophisticated brain. It's a complete dead end parliamentary politics.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 29, 2020)

Nandy does have that cringe-making
 Cool Britannia/“I’m a straight talking normal person just like you” Blairism going on.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 29, 2020)

Burgon surge


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 29, 2020)

yield said:


> I've no skin in the game. But Hell a plague on both their houses. That's terrible.
> 
> The parliamentary road to socialism aye. So grubby


Not even socialism, parliamentary road to left-liberalism/mild social democracy.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What are posters shadow cabinet predictions then?



Leader: Slay Queen RLB
Deputy Leader: Jeremy Corbyn 
Shadow Queen: Meghan Merkel
Shadow Chancellor: John McDonnell 
Shadow Home Secretary: Diane Abbott 
Shadow Attorney General: Shami Chakrabarti 
Shadow Minister for Nothern Ireland: Gerry Adams 
Shadow Minister for Europe: Michel Barnier
Shadow Minister for Culture: Stormzy 
Shadow Minister for Defence: Abu Hamza
Shadow DEFRA secretary: Joey Carbstrong 
Shadow Minister for DWP: Ken Loach 
Shadow Foreign Secretary: Raul Castro
Shadow Minister for Health: Bernie Sanders
Shadow Education Secretary: Enver Hoxha’s corpse 

#winningteam


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Leader: Slay Queen RLB
> Deputy Leader: Jeremy Corbyn
> Shadow Queen: Meghan Merkel
> Shadow Chancellor: John McDonnell
> ...


That Abbott prediction looks pretty improbable, tbh.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 29, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Leader: Slay Queen RLB
> Deputy Leader: Jeremy Corbyn
> Shadow Queen: Meghan Merkel
> Shadow Chancellor: John McDonnell
> ...



That’s more like it. Smile and the world smiles with you


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 29, 2020)




----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 29, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Leader: Slay Queen RLB


Going back to Proper Tidy's point a few pages ago what do you intend to do if (when) Starmer becomes leader and moves the party to the right? Where are your red lines for remaining a member? What would, say, Rachel "tougher than the tories" Reeves getting a shadow cabinet place mean to you?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Going back to Proper Tidy's point a few pages ago what do you intend to do if (when) Starmer becomes leader and moves the party to the right? Where are your red lines for remaining a member? What would, say, Rachel "tougher than the tories" Reeves getting a shadow cabinet place mean to you?


A member mate of mine tells me that the right are already putting it about that La Reeves has been on a personal "political journey".


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

_She's got a lovely touch

_


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 29, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Not even socialism, parliamentary road to left-liberalism/mild social democracy.


Or the parliamentary road to more of the same old capitalist shit.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 29, 2020)

The M4?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> _She's got a lovely touch
> 
> View attachment 200115_



He's on about five a side


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 29, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Going back to Proper Tidy's point a few pages ago what do you intend to do if (when) Starmer becomes leader and moves the party to the right? Where are your red lines for remaining a member? What would, say, Rachel "tougher than the tories" Reeves getting a shadow cabinet place mean to you?



Wouldn’t take much for me to quit tbh, but Labour would have to go VERY far to the right for me to stop voting for them against the Nationalist Trumpist Tory scum.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

Amongst a list of some noteworthy donors, I see that Nandy got a personal £4k from John Reid:



> The financial backers of the Wigan MP who have donated over £1,500 include:
> 
> 
> Mark Glover, a former Labour councillor and the CEO of Newington Communications, a PR consultancy with clients such as Anglian Water, Canary Wharf Group and e-Power.
> ...


----------



## killer b (Feb 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> _She's got a lovely touch
> 
> View attachment 200115_


Monbiot is an absolute sucker half the time. Remember that piece he wrote stanning Michael fucking Gove?


----------



## treelover (Feb 29, 2020)

Its not so much Reeves I am concerned about as Cooper, the architect of the WCA, the invisible wheelchair test for ESA, ATOs, etc, she also is on record as saying at the time, the balance of power between tenant and landlord still needed moving more to the latter.

I will consider leaving if she joins shadow cabinet, at least Liam Byrne has recanted a bit.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 29, 2020)

Spandex said:


> Social mobility in the 60s & 70s wasn't about working class people getting jobs as judges or on the boards of companies. Those jobs were still reserved for the upper middle/upper class. But it was the time of big state owned companies, jobs for life and unionised manufacturing in the UK. A young working class lad (and it probably would be a man - women were still mostly secretaries or teachers or staying home to bring up the kids) could get a low level job in a big company and over the years get promoted to middle management, moving to the lower middle class. Big companies might pay for them to get a degree (maybe through the open university) to skill them up. It was still possible to get on the housing ladder.
> 
> These days jobs for life are mostly a thing of the past, so the possibility for that advancement is reduced. Unions are eviscerated and companies don't put the money into developing staff. Shit, most places are quite happy to get rid of long term staff to replace them with younger, cheaper people. Many big industries have disappeared overseas. There aren't the same opportunities for social mobility as there used to be.



Cheers a good post.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 29, 2020)

treelover said:


> Its not so much Reeves I am concerned about as Cooper, the architect of the WCA, the invisible wheelchair test for ESA, ATOs, etc, she also is on record as saying at the time, the balance of power between tenant and landlord still needed moving more to the latter.
> 
> I will consider leaving if she joins shadow cabinet, at least Liam Byrne has recanted a bit.



Reeves is horrible but yeah cooper, I can't imagine how anybody could throw themselves behind a party with her front and centre. She's a fucking ghoul


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 29, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Reeves is horrible but yeah cooper, I can't imagine how anybody could throw themselves behind a party with her front and centre. She's a fucking ghoul



I’ll be surprised if she isn’t resurrected at some point by Sir Kier. Not shadow chancellor maybe but entire career has been about the promotion of the  narrating class and the defence of dead centrist politics.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

That's Rachel _been on a personal political journey and is anxious to reconnect with our 'core' vote _Reeves, to you.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 29, 2020)

treelover said:


> she also is on record as saying at the time, the balance of power between tenant and landlord still needed moving more to the latter.


Do you, by any chance, have a link showing where Cooper said that? 
No worries if not, but it would be useful if you point to where/when it came from.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The M4?


Pretty much.

Imagine. One more push comrades and we can get to Leigh Delamere.


----------



## chilango (Feb 29, 2020)

killer b said:


> Monbiot is an absolute sucker half the time. Remember that piece he wrote stanning Michael fucking Gove?



The one time I met Monbiot I trashed his C4 interview. I'd gladly do it again.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 1, 2020)

A timely and useful intervention from Ian Lavery and John Trickett. I don’t share their belief in the role and history of the Labour Party. But their intervention and promotion of working class interests is very important given the likely victory of Starmer. 

_Let’s renew the social contract which we always wanted to create between our movement and the nation. Labour was never intended to be a career ladder constructed for professional politicians to climb. It was created to be a mass movement designed to transform our society from top to bottom. 

Our purpose was to promote the common good; a better society for all. The first step on our journey is surely to rediscover our working-class foundations, upon which a great movement can yet be built. _









						Northern Discomfort
					

Today MPs Ian Lavery and Jon Trickett are launching their report 'Northern Discomfort,' which argues for a radical change in Labour's approach to communities in the North of England.




					tribunemag.co.uk


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 1, 2020)

If the social contract/1945-1979 labour was so good for social mobility (and for disabled people), why did successive post war labour governments support mass, life long institutionalisation?


----------



## Spandex (Mar 1, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> If the social contract/1945-1979 labour was so good for social mobility (and for disabled people), why did successive post war labour governments support mass, life long institutionalisation?


I don't think anyone has said the post war social contract was good for disabled people. The treatment of disabled people right up to the 90s was fucking shameful - lock 'em up; treat 'em like children at best, animals at worst; out of sight, out of mind. 

Of course the treatment of disabled people since the 90s has been fucking shameful too, but for different reasons - big talk about support in the community, but not enough money to pay for it so disabled people are forced to exist rather than live, relying on failing services to get by.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 1, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> If the social contract/1945-1979 labour was so good for social mobility (and for disabled people), why did successive post war labour governments support mass, life long institutionalisation?



It was a social democracy which understood society being composed overwhelmingly of heterosexual families with male wage earners and female carers. For those who fitted those roles (or choose to fit in with them or could see no alternative) it could and did supply significant economic, social and even cultural benefits. For those unwilling or unable to meet the demands of social democracy - e.g. the need economic participation and social conformity - the spaces left were to be cared for, cured or disciplined; it was sometimes not possible to distinguish between these alternatives.

However in this parliamentary democracy for many many people it was a vast improvement over what had gone before; as an example the emergence of the NHS general hospital from the corridors of the the workhouse was a genuine step in the right direction (even if those hospitals carried the taint of their prior use for decades to come. 

As for deinstitutionalisation, it's famous proponent Enoch Powell, championed the cause on the basis of a thoroughly individualistic liberalism (economic and philosophical); his was a politics and an economics which had starved and bullied those disabled by society in the past. The fact that the mistreatment took place outside of the confines of a bricks and mortar institution didn't make it any less abusive (indeed it protected it from any sort of democratic oversight); just as the abusive treatment that people are subjected to (the poverty, the lack of support, the discrimination) are no less abusive for happening in 'the community' today.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 1, 2020)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It was a social democracy which understood society being composed overwhelmingly of heterosexual families with male wage earners and female carers. For those who fitted those roles (or choose to fit in with them or could see no alternative) it could and did supply significant economic, social and even cultural benefits. For those unwilling or unable to meet the demands of social democracy - e.g. the need economic participation and social conformity - the spaces left were to be cared for, cured or disciplined; it was sometimes not possible to distinguish between these alternatives.
> 
> However in this parliamentary democracy for many many people it was a vast improvement over what had gone before; as an example the emergence of the NHS general hospital from the corridors of the the workhouse was a genuine step in the right direction (even if those hospitals carried the taint of their prior use for decades to come.
> 
> ...



I would like to think that no one here (and on the left more generally) is a fan of Powell or thatcher, or has any illusions about their motivations for deinstitutionalisation, or their attitudes towards disabled people, or that  ‘post-institutional’ society was some paradise (in any case, ‘de-institutionalisation’ is a myth - the bricks and mortar is still very much alive, albeit it is now run by private companies; and as you’ve noted, the point of ‘welfare reform’ was to enact economic-Institutionalisation in ‘the community’. 

None of this makes legal/physical  institutionalisation any less of a stain on humanity, nor does it make The Left’s sympathy (or even explicit and active support) for institutionalisation any less abhorrent. 

I’d be interested to learn more about this ‘Democratic oversight’ of pre-thatcher Institutions.

That being said, I like this:  



Louis MacNeice said:


> It was a social democracy which understood society being composed overwhelmingly of heterosexual families with male wage earners and female carers. For those who fitted those roles (or choose to fit in with them or could see no alternative) it could and did supply significant economic, social and even cultural benefits. For those unwilling or unable to meet the demands of social democracy - e.g. the need economic participation and social conformity - the spaces left were to be cared for, cured or disciplined; it was sometimes not possible to distinguish between these alternatives.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 1, 2020)

Ostalgia


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 1, 2020)

I met Steve Coogan’s brother (an LA SW) at a social care thing in Manchester the other day; I ended up getting pissed with some LD Self-advocates and other bods, celebrating life and mapping out an actual strategy to address our political/social/economic struggles. 

This felt far closer in spirit to what actual disabled people were doing in the 1970s (see the Mental Patients Union eg) than anything that was/will be offered by Corbyn/RLB and their hangers on (or indeed any of the other activist Left types)


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 1, 2020)

Louis MacNeice said:


> ...the lack of support, the discrimination) are no less abusive for happening in 'the community' today.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



There is some very poor care in the community, which has led to awful incidents and deaths. Acute MH provision and hospitalisation is still dreadful. But there is also some great care in ordinary housing and examples of disabled people with learning disabilities living purposeful, independent and healthy lives.

By comparison, there were almost no examples of institutionalised care that were any good whatsoever. Even putting aside the de facto denial of liberty, almost all personal effects, money and an ordinary life, long-term care institutions were horrible places where almost every aspect of care was poor. I visited quite a few in the early 80s and worked with people about to be resettled. They had been systematically denied access to straightforward primary healthcare, so for instance one man had been assumed deaf twenty years past, but examination by a community ENT specialist soon revealed his ears had cotton wool lost in them. Many people had rigid and repetitive self harming behaviours some of which soon disappeared when they left the cruelty of institutional living.

Some people still get terrible care, it’s taken a massive hit from ‘best value’ to austerity, but others get independent budgets and a home of their own, do many of the things everyone else does. None of that took place in institutions so there isn’t a simple equivalence with today’s problems.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 1, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> They had been systematically denied access to straightforward primary healthcare, so for instance one man had been assumed deaf twenty years past, but examination by a community ENT specialist soon revealed his ears had cotton wool lost in them.



Fucking hell. That's horrible


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 2, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’d be interested to learn more about this ‘Democratic oversight’ of pre-thatcher Institutions.
> :



What I was getting at was the increased availability of public institutions to scrutiny compared to their private counterparts. I'm not being nostalgic, looking for the return of some lost social democratic golden age which with just a bit of tweaking can welcome the mad as full members. 

However, I am proposing that the social democratic settlement was a genuine improvement on what went before because it opened up to public politics what had previously been held to be private and therefore necessarily apolitical, and in doing so provided some opportunity for the mad to constitute themselves as authoritative, capable political subjects e.g. in organisations such as the Mad Persons Union (MPU). 

Of course social democracy didn't have the capacity to seriously engage with self emancipatory organisations such as the MPU (just as it struggled with self aware and assertive rank and file groups of workers), but neither could it completely dismiss them as political actors in their own right, a dismissal which liberalism had previously maintained with great and enduring success.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. I write this as someone who has been a user of mental health services (inpatient and out, voluntary and compelled), worked as a volunteer for MIND and had a twenty five year long academic engagement with the study of the coming together of mental health and politics first as a student and then as a lecturer and researcher.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 2, 2020)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What I was getting at was the increased availability of public institutions to scrutiny compared to their private counterparts. I'm not being nostalgic, looking for the return of some lost social democratic golden age which with just a bit of tweaking can welcome the mad as full members.
> 
> However, I am proposing that the social democratic settlement was a genuine improvement on what went before because it opened up to public politics what had previously been held to be private and therefore necessarily apolitical, and in doing so provided some opportunity for the mad to constitute themselves as authoritative, capable political subjects e.g. in organisations such as the Mad Persons Union (MPU).
> 
> ...


Great post. Thanks


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 4, 2020)

Starmer car crash on Marr. Embarrassing


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 4, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Starmer car crash on Marr. Embarrassing



Andrew Neill you mean?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 4, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Andrew Neill you mean?



That Andrew


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 4, 2020)

Two car crash interviews by Sir Kier Waitrose and Long-Bailey.

Labour are fucked.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 5, 2020)

Let’s face it, they’d be fucked even if they had flawless candidates.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2020)

Long Bailey seems to be becoming more confident, more robust, her own person, innovative policies, but still unlikely to vote for her, mightn't vote at all.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Two car crash interviews by Sir Kier Waitrose and Long-Bailey.
> 
> Labour are fucked.



Why, still Pro FOM?


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Two car crash interviews by Sir Kier Waitrose and Long-Bailey.
> 
> Labour are fucked.


Is anyone paying attention though? I only know about_ car crash interviews_ with leadership candidates because I occasionally click on this thread, and I'm actually interested in it (a bit). It's 5 years til the next election - car crash interviews today are pretty meaningless.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2020)

Forget the ‘red wall’, Labour can win by appealing to a new demographic | Alex Niven
					

The next leader should focus on building support among young people, families and precarious workers around urban centres, says lecturer Alex Niven




					www.theguardian.com
				





Well others have plans


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

treelover said:


> Forget the ‘red wall’, Labour can win by appealing to a new demographic | Alex Niven
> 
> 
> The next leader should focus on building support among young people, families and precarious workers around urban centres, says lecturer Alex Niven
> ...


the headline doesn't match the content of the article tbf


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> Is anyone paying attention though? I only know about_ car crash interviews_ with leadership candidates because I occasionally click on this thread, and I'm actually interested in it (a bit). It's 5 years til the next election - car crash interviews today are pretty meaningless.



The people voting in the labour leadership election might be watching these interviews


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2020)

treelover said:


> Forget the ‘red wall’, Labour can win by appealing to a new demographic | Alex Niven
> 
> 
> The next leader should focus on building support among young people, families and precarious workers around urban centres, says lecturer Alex Niven
> ...



Oxbridge New-Leftist says focus on the youth?


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The people voting in the labour leadership election might be watching these interviews


I guess they - an electorate strongly in favour of free movement - must have been who Starmer had in mind when he defended free movement to Neil then, rather than the wider electorate who weren't watching and don't care.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> Is anyone paying attention though? I only know about_ car crash interviews_ with leadership candidates because I occasionally click on this thread, and I'm actually interested in it (a bit). It's 5 years til the next election - car crash interviews today are pretty meaningless.



I think most people won’t notice or care that RLB’s career as a lawyer wasn’t focussed on ‘defending the NHS’ but PFI work. I also think most won’t notice or care that Starmer won’t say who is funding him.

So the reason why Labour is fucked is not about this. It’s about the fact that neither is able to coherently explain that they understand what has happened to Labour or how it avoids reproducing the same experience. It’s visible in the way about the conclusions Starmer has drawn from his time in the red wall - which are _entirely _the wrong ones. It’s there when RLB talks about the aspirational and non-state networks in WC communities and in doing so reveals she hasn’t got a clue what they are and how they work.


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

They're trying to get elected as leader of the labour party though, not give a detailed and honest analysis of why they lost the election.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> They're trying to get elected as leader of the labour party though, not give a detailed and honest analysis of why they lost the election.



It should be possible to walk and chew gum at the same time


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2020)

Starmer was shaking in his interview. There was no confidence, just waffle about ‘modelling unity’. 

He won’t get better at this.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2020)

Went full Ben Swain. Painful to watch.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2020)

The interviews themselves are less important (although of course the embarrassing bits will be used at the next GE), it’s that the candidates are demonstrating how inadequate they are for the task of galvanising and rebuilding the Labour Party/vote.


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Ben Swain.
> 
> The bit I saw he didn't look THAT bad but I've just nearly choked reading that


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 5, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Let’s face it, they’d be fucked even if they had flawless candidates.



Probably so. The contradiction between being the efficient custodian of the bourgeois state and recognising the damage that does to people is so huge, the landing strip of electability for Labour so narrow, it’s inevitable every candidate trying to balance it will fall off one way or another.


----------



## oryx (Mar 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Went full Ben Swain. Painful to watch.


Didn't Ben Swain blink too much or something?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2020)

Shat himself in an interview


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

Were we watching the same thing? Thought starmer did pretty well.

RLB was a total car crash.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I think most people won’t notice or care that RLB’s career as a lawyer wasn’t focussed on ‘defending the NHS’ but PFI work. I also think most won’t notice or care that Starmer won’t say who is funding him.
> 
> So the reason why Labour is fucked is not about this. It’s about the fact that neither is able to coherently explain that they understand what has happened to Labour or how it avoids reproducing the same experience. It’s visible in the way about the conclusions Starmer has drawn from his time in the red wall - which are _entirely _the wrong ones. It’s there when RLB talks about the aspirational and non-state networks in WC communities and in doing so reveals she hasn’t got a clue what they are and how they work.


Was Starmer not 'parachuted' into his constituency?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 5, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Was Starmer not 'parachuted' into his constituency?



Sadly it wasn’t cut


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Were we watching the same thing? Thought starmer did pretty well.
> 
> RLB was a total car crash.



What specifically do you think he did pretty well?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Sadly it wasn’t cut



I don't trust him either. His time with the CPS was hardly stellar.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What specifically do you think he did pretty well?


The fact he answered all the questions eloquently. He held his own for the most part apart from the funding bit.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 5, 2020)

I haven't heard (no pun intended ) of this lot, but an interesting article.









						How Labour's Left has stitched up selection
					

Local constituencies are powerless as favoured candidates are parachuted in by the new regime




					unherd.com


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> The fact he answered all the questions eloquently. He held his own for the most part apart from the funding bit.



One would think that who is funding him should be transparent.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> One would think that who is funding him should be transparent.


It’s all published here: 




__





						House of Commons - The Register of Members' Financial Interests (2 March 2020: Starmer, Keir )
					






					publications.parliament.uk
				




Updated every 2 weeks


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> It’s all published here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but you dont have to submit for two weeks, and then its updated every two weeks, so its four weeks behind in a six week contest.

I saw a nice quote about Starmer saying something like 'he speaks so eloquently, you come away thinking how marvellously eloquent he is, and only realise the next day you can't remember anything he actually said'


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

belboid said:


> I saw a nice quote about Starmer saying something like 'he speaks so eloquently, you come away thinking how marvellously eloquent he is, and only realise the next day you can't remember anything he actually said'


that sounds like a solid skill for a politician tbh


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

belboid said:


> but you dont have to submit for two weeks, and then its updated every two weeks, so its four weeks behind in a six week contest.
> 
> I saw a nice quote about Starmer saying something like 'he speaks so eloquently, you come away thinking how marvellously eloquent he is, and only realise the next day you can't remember anything he actually said'


And that is the process agreed & set out by the Labour Party, so what’s the problem?


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> And that is the process agreed & set out by the Labour Party, so what’s the problem?


The LP didnt agree and set out the HoC register. The other two contestants aren't waiting four weeks to say who is funding them. That's the problem.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> The fact he answered all the questions eloquently. He held his own for the most part apart from the funding bit.



And the actual content of his answers?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

belboid said:


> The LP didnt agree and set out the HoC register. The other two contestants aren't waiting four weeks to say who is funding them. That's the problem.


I think it was agreed by the NEC?

if you’re really worried that a certain T. Blair has bunged starmer a million quid in the past couple of weeks don’t vote for him... but I think the people screaming “dark money!!!” aren’t likely to vote for him anyway.


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> if you’re really worried that a certain T. Blair has bunged starmer a million quid in the past couple of weeks don’t vote for him... but I think the people screaming “dark money!!!” aren’t likely to vote for him anyway.


I think there may be other people beyond the _people screaming dark money_ who might consider voting elsewhere, depending on who's funding him. A calculation he's surely made himself, or he'd say who's funding him.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think there may be other people beyond the _people screaming dark money_ who might consider voting elsewhere, depending on who's funding him. A calculation he's surely made himself, or he'd say who's funding him.


Maybe the front runner doesn’t want/have to bow down to RLB’s demands. I see people like Aaron Bastani on twitter becoming increasingly hysterical and they look ridiculous.
Anyway, I’ll check that link again in a couple of weeks. Have already voted for starmer anyway


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’ll check that link again in a couple of weeks.


lol no you won't.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> lol no you won't.


Why wouldn’t I? I’m pretty sure there’s going to be nothing dodgy on it? I want to prove bastani wrong


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

I look forward for your explanations why actually it's just fine he's taken cash of this cunt or the other, in that case.


----------



## JimW (Mar 5, 2020)

Must be someone pretty grim as the secrecy is a terrible look.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> I look forward for your explanations why actually it's just fine he's taken cash of this cunt or the other, in that case.


Fine. I can’t think of anyone who might plausibly have donated that would bother me though. It’s not going to be Donald Trump!


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

JimW said:


> Must be someone pretty grim as the secrecy is a terrible look.


Not secret though House of Commons - The Register of Members' Financial Interests (2 March 2020: Starmer, Keir )


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I can’t think of anyone who might plausibly have donated that would bother me though


I know.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

There will of course be thousands of people who donated under £1500. Those don’t have to be registered. I am one of them! I am a “dark donor”


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

Honestly, do people really think that meticulous cleanshirt, former head of the CPS, keir starmer is going to be money laundering funds from the trilateral commission via the dark web?


----------



## JimW (Mar 5, 2020)

No, just some run of the mill odious tycoon or he wouldn't be so coy.


----------



## killer b (Mar 5, 2020)

I think people imagine he may be being funded by people who's political aims are at odds with theirs, and that this funding may indicate something about what they can expect about the future direction of the party under Starmer.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Honestly, do people really think that meticulous cleanshirt, former head of the CPS, keir starmer is going to be money laundering funds from the trilateral commission via the dark web?



Do I think he's above such behaviour? No. He's establishment to his boots and the establishment is corrupt beyond redemption. Taking dodgy money might be a bad tactical move for Starmer, but ethics is not a consderation for him. He knows all about the prison system he sent thousands to rot in, he doesn't have any ethics.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think people imagine he may be being funded by people who's political aims are at odds with theirs, and that this funding may indicate something about what they can expect about the future direction of the party under Starmer.



I’m one of the people that thinks that fakeplasticgirl 

What other reasons would he have for the secrecy?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m one of the people that thinks that fakeplasticgirl
> 
> What other reasons would he have for the secrecy?


But you loathe him no matter what.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Do I think he's above such behaviour? No. He's establishment to his boots and the establishment is corrupt beyond redemption. Taking dodgy money might be a bad tactical move for Starmer, but ethics is not a consderation for him. He knows all about the prison system he sent thousands to rot in, he doesn't have any ethics.


Yeah, the guy who spent a huge proportion of his life working for free to eradicate the death penalty has no ethics.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> But you loathe him no matter what.



That’s true. But the fact remains there must be a reason as to why Starmer is loathe to make the same disclosure as Nandy and RLB. What is the reason??


----------



## brogdale (Mar 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That’s true. But the fact remains there must be a reason as to why Starmer is loathe to make the same disclosure as Nandy and RLB. What is the reason??


My guess is because some of the folk yet to vote are Labour.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Yeah, the guy who spent a huge proportion of his life working for free to eradicate the death penalty has no ethics.


Christ. He's got you bad hasn't he


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Christ. He's got you bad hasn't he


Afraid so.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 5, 2020)

JimW said:


> No, just some run of the mill odious tycoon or he wouldn't be so coy.


He did say that the 100k already revealed was the biggest donation, so if there is anything bigger from Odious Tycoon he will have skewered himself.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 5, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> He did say that the 100k already revealed was the biggest donation, so if there is anything bigger from Odious Tycoon he will have skewered himself.


Yes, the biggest donation revealed, so far. 
The relevant electoral law determines that donations do not have to be formally 'accepted' for 30 days after the actual date of donation and do not have to be declared for a further 28 days after that.
How very convenient for any interests keen to undermine the socialism is a 'socialist' democratic party.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 5, 2020)

Waitrose’s journey to ‘the red wall’ (which he made sound like a colonial expedition) was especially revealing. It turns out all we wanted after all was a ‘gritty’ conversation and then we’d be happy to see our communities destroyed and then ignored. To see lives turned into recycled pools of labour working on business parks for minimum wage. To be managed as surplus zones of population.

But, ultimately, happy Sir Kier Waitrose came up on a train to give it to us between the eyes before retiring to a gratis hotel for the evening with his advisers


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 5, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yes, the biggest donation revealed, so far.
> The relevant electoral law determines that donations do not have to be formally 'accepted' for 30 days after the actual date of donation and do not have to be declared for a further 28 days after that.
> How very convenient for any interests keen to undermine the socialism is a 'socialist' democratic party.



Yes. Now he’s been called out on it by the other candidates it’s impossible to infer anything good from his unwillingness to answer.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Afraid so.



You have said previously you are in South London. Im in Lambeth. A borough still run by New Labour Cllrs. They were against Corbyn from the start. Liz Kendell then Owen Smith. Now they are keen on Starmer

As Ive posted previously of my experience in local community issues I dont like New Labour. Im really concerned that the now old New Labour establishment. Entrenched in a local Council like mine will relish the thought that election of Starmer will be part of the long haul to get the party back for them. They have hung on in places like Lambeth throughout Corbyn leadership.

The membership has increased since Corbyn. Old Labour rejoining and new young  people. These are good people. The old New Labour establishment in Lambeth hasnt welcomed them with open arms. Chuka left mainly because he was out of step with local membership.

Having had to deal with the New Labour "centre ground" for years I dont want its return to run the party.

Im mainly interested in bread and butter issues that effect my local community.

Im wondering what your actual experience of the local Labour party is.

Why you think Starmer is good choice.

Do you support the idea of a local Labour party which welcomes people who campaign on local issues. Rather than seeing them as a problem.

People in my area vote Labour still. Even if its not liked ( to add its not liked locally)


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You have said previously you are in South London. Im in Lambeth. A borough still run by New Labour Cllrs. They were against Corbyn from the start. Liz Kendell then Owen Smith. Now they are keen on Starmer
> 
> As Ive posted previously of my experience in local community issues I dont like New Labour. Im really concerned that the now old New Labour establishment. Entrenched in a local Council like mine will relish the thought that election of Starmer will be part of the long haul to get the party back for them. They have hung on in places like Lambeth throughout Corbyn leadership.
> 
> ...


What does keir starmer have to do with new labour, other than the fact some new labour people are voting for him? Plenty of corbynites like him too. People such as Laura Parker, Momentum’s former national coordinator. I was phone banking next to her last week. Show me evidence starmer is new labour? He is not new labour.

I want Keir Starmer to win because Labour have just had their worst defeat in 85 years and I think he’s best placed to win an election. Simple as that.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 6, 2020)

Not pro-working class?


----------



## Humberto (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> What does keir starmer have to do with new labour, other than the fact some new labour people are voting for him?



Not pro working-class?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Humberto said:


> Not pro working-class?


Corbyn repelled the working classes. And now labour have lost four elections in a row


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> What does keir starmer have to do with new labour, other than the fact some new labour people are voting for him? Plenty of corbynites like him too. People such as Laura Parker, Momentum’s former national coordinator. I was phone banking next to her last week. Starmer is not new labour.
> 
> I want Keir Starmer to win because Labour have just had their worst defeat in 85 years and I think he’s best placed to win an election. Simple as that.



The leader of Lambeth Council came out for Starmer at the very start. Once Starmer is leader there is going to be a struggle. People like my Cllrs never wanted Corbyn. They didnt want any of it I dont see how one individual can unite a party.

From what Ive seen of Lambeth the left and right of the party dont see eye to eye. The right of the party control the Council. The left in Streatham got there candidate in as MP despite two Cllrs trying to get the seat. Who the membership rejected. Its a divided party.

I also wonder what is going to happen to the idea of community organising.

Its definitely not something my Cllrs are keen on. Its more like something they have to put up with. Recent meeting one of them lost it and started telling people they were the ususal suspects who always complain.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Corbyn repelled the working classes.



Going back to our patch South London. No he didnt. Labour did well in Lambeth. Helen Hayes and the new MP for Streatham Bell Ribeiro- Addy ( replaced Chuka and is on left of party) So I dont know which working classes you talk to in London because most people I know supported Labour.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Going back to our patch South London. No he didnt. Labour did well in Lambeth. Helen Hayes and the new MP for Streatham Bell Ribeiro- Addy ( replaced Chuka and is on left of party) So I dont know which working classes you talk to in London because most people I know supported Labour.


I’m not talking about London. I’m talking about northern England. He was seen as unpatriotic.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m not talking about London. I’m talking about northern England. He was seen as unpatriotic.



You said the working classes. Do the working class not live in London?

You said "Corbyn repelled the working classes". Im saying in our patch London he didnt.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Corbyn repelled the working classes. And now labour have lost four elections in a row



To make progress they need to make clear policy statements, not wheel out a few bribes come election time. Does Starmer come across as capable of that? And/or is he at least inspiring/charismatic given the roasting any Labour leader can expect unless they 'play nice'. It's going nowhere. It's a small time move.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The leader of Lambeth Council came out for Starmer at the very start. Once Starmer is leader there is going to be a struggle. People like my Cllrs never wanted Corbyn. They didnt want any of it I dont see how one individual can unite a party.
> 
> From what Ive seen of Lambeth the left and right of the party dont see eye to eye. The right of the party control the Council. The left in Streatham got there candidate in as MP despite two Cllrs trying to get the seat. Who the membership rejected. Its a divided party.
> 
> ...


And I’m sorry if you’ve had issues with local councillors, and it’s great that new people have joined since 2015, but first, loads on the left support Starmer too, and secondly that’s of no use really if we keep losing elections. I’m campaigning with a lot of people from momentum. Starmer’s just non factional. I think and hope your fears are unfounded.
He’s had direct experience of running a large organisation and labour needs that - another issue I’ve had is with anti semitism. I’m Jewish and have heard horrible stuff. I don’t think Corbyn is anti Semitic btw, but he didn’t deal with it properly.


----------



## oryx (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m not talking about London. I’m talking about northern England. He was seen as unpatriotic.


How do you think Starmer will go down in what were leave voting areas/ the 'Red Wall'/whatever you call it, given the perception of him as a remainer? (Also as a London centric member of the elite, which I do think is slightly unfair BTW)?


----------



## Humberto (Mar 6, 2020)

Nandy would be more apt to grow into the role. Not ready to roll, but has potential.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You said the working classes. Do the working class not live in London?
> 
> You said "Corbyn repelled the working classes". Im saying in our patch London he didnt.


But there’s no point hoarding up votes in labour strong-holds and losing them everywhere else come election time. 

Now, obviously I don’t live in northern England, so I’m going on what I’ve read, but I highly recommend Lewis Goodall’s book “Left for Dead” for an examination of how Corbyn has got the young/ student/ middle class lecturer vote and completely lost the working classes.

will starmer do better? I think he’s very competent and he will. If I’m wrong and he starts tanking in the polls well... I guess I’ll cry and jump on the Nandwagon.
Anyway, off to bed now. Night.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

oryx said:


> How do you think Starmer will go down in what were leave voting areas/ the 'Red Wall'/whatever you call it, given the perception of him as a remainer? (Also as a London centric member of the elite, which I do think is slightly unfair BTW)?


As I’ve posted here before, current polling shows he’s the most popular of the three amongst the red wall. RLB’s polling is horrific.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 6, 2020)

Humberto said:


> Nandy would be more apt to grow into the role. Not ready to roll, but has potential.



Does she actually give a fuck? I don't know. But she gets involved in stuff you would want from a Labour MP.


----------



## oryx (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> As I’ve posted here before, current polling shows he’s the most popular of the three amongst the red wall. RLB’s polling is horrific.



Have you got a source for that? Have gone a fair few posts back and can't see anything. YouGov?

Unfortunately, I can see him winning the leadership election and being Ed Miliband Mark II. He's moderately likeable. Notwithstanding me choking with laughter over MadeInBedlam 's comments on his likeness to Ben Swain, I don't think he's that bad a media performer. He's just a bit...meh, and IMHO he has a dodgy voting record. 

If he makes steps to uniting the party, and wins an election, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Ipso mori
> Here’s the article: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...1/ipsos_mori_political_pulse_january_2020.pdf
> And here’s a summary for ease:
> 
> butchersapron



oryx this was the post I was referring to.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

oryx said:


> Have you got a source for that? Have gone a fair few posts back and can't see anything. YouGov?
> 
> Unfortunately, I can see him winning the leadership election and being Ed Miliband Mark II. He's moderately likeable. Notwithstanding me choking with laughter over MadeInBedlam 's comments on his likeness to Ben Swain, I don't think he's that bad a media performer. He's just a bit...meh, and IMHO he has a dodgy voting record.
> 
> If he makes steps to uniting the party, and wins an election, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.


I guess he might end up being Ed Miliband Mark 2. And I’ll be disappointed. But out of the three I think he’s the best of the lot. RLB will be an electoral disaster and nandy isn’t ready imo.

(actually going to bed now).


----------



## oryx (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I guess he might end up being Ed Miliband Mark 2. And I’ll be disappointed. But out of the three I think he’s the best of the lot. RLB will be an electoral disaster and nandy isn’t ready imo.
> 
> (actually going to bed now).


I suppose that my view is Starmer will be a Miliband or a Kinnock (I liked and voted for the former, didn't like the latter). But either way, they didn't win a GE.

Long Bailey (and to an extent Lisa Nandy) are more of a change, a breath of fresh air, less 'establishment'. Someone I know said they could see Long Bailey growing in the role in the way that Nicola Sturgeon (a politician I admire and respect) did.

I posted (way) above that if Labour had been in power during Brexit negotiations, he would have been a very able, constructive and collaborative negotiator. I am less convinced about his ability to unite the LP and win a GE because whatever current opinion polls say, I see his position as a second referendum backer as problematic (in terms of a GE) and the possibility of him reintroducing 'Controls on Immigration' mugs and 'we're the party of people who work' type politics (in terms of internal party politics).


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I’m not talking about London. I’m talking about northern England. He was seen as unpatriotic.



I think the decline of the labour party outside of the cities is a bit more than this and tbh this sort of stuff is pretty lazy and insulting really. Also the single issue which most undermined that vote in 'northern england' (which includes west/east mids and wales apparently) between '17 and' 19 was the fucking batshit brexit position. The one that starmer still stands by.


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 6, 2020)

Did anyone catch this interview RLB with Andrew Neil? Apparently it didn’t go well but I’ve only watched some of the short clips.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 6, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Did anyone catch this interview RLB with Andrew Neil? Apparently it didn’t go well but I’ve only watched some of the short clips.




Yes. Read the thread.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I think the decline of the labour party outside of the cities is a bit more than this and tbh this sort of stuff is pretty lazy and insulting really. Also the single issue which most undermined that vote in 'northern england' (which includes west/east mids and wales apparently) between '17 and' 19 was the fucking batshit brexit position. The one that starmer still stands by.



If you want to know how badly unmoored the Labour Party is, and how disorientated it is,consider this.  Starmer is busy publicly rewriting the entire history of what happened on Brexit, his role and Corbyn's. None of the other leadership challengers have pulled him on it or sought to engage him on it. 

Given that his offer to members is based on his record. And given that at the centre of that record, as a pol anyway, are the judgements he made, the position that he adopted in public and in reality and the role he played in Labour's approach to Brexit shouldn't they? Isn't it odd that the man who led Labour on the issue that cost them an election and led to their worst performance since the 1930's will be elected leader without anyone saying a word about it. Astonishing.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

[QUOTE="oryx, post: 16427565, member:]/see his position as a second referendum backer as problematic (in terms of a GE) and the possibility of him reintroducing 'Controls on Immigration' mugs and 'we're the party of people who work' type politics (in terms of internal party politics).
[/QUOTE]

Why do you think he’d bring back those revolting controls of immigrations mugs? I’ve seen nothing to suggest he would. Lisa Nandy might though.
I like Nicola sturgeon too, and don’t see any similarities between her and RLB. To me, RLB comes across as wooden and scripted. I just can’t see her appealing to anybody outside her core support.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I think the decline of the labour party outside of the cities is a bit more than this and tbh this sort of stuff is pretty lazy and insulting really. Also the single issue which most undermined that vote in 'northern england' (which includes west/east mids and wales apparently) between '17 and' 19 was the fucking batshit brexit position. The one that starmer still stands by.


No, corbyn’s leadership was a bigger factor than Brexit. 

Anyway, I’m repeating myself now as I’ve posted about this before.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

They were one and the same.

Anyway, not seen you so enthused since Cleggmania and the 2010 tory/lib-dem coalition.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> They were one and the same.
> 
> Anyway, not seen you so enthused since Cleggmania and the 2010 tory/lib-dem coalition.


Huh?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Are you implying that because I support starmer I must be a Tory?
That’s a great argument. Try it on the thousands of labour voters that are hopefully going to vote him in as leader.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Huh?


I mean that the leadership 'question' was entirely bound up with brexit and the collapse into an effective remain position amongst the labour leadership.

And i mean that the last time i recall seeing you posting so enthusiastically about politics and leaders was around Clegg and the Lib-dems and their 2010 election performance and then coalition with the tories. In ordere to suggest that your reading of the direction of travel wasn't so accurate last time.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Are you implying that because I support starmer I must be a Tory?
> That’s a great argument. Try it on the thousands of labour voters that are hopefully going to vote him in as leader.


Are you implying that lib-dem voters are tories?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I mean that the leadership 'question' was entirely bound up with brexit and the collapse into an effective remain position amongst the labour leadership.
> 
> And i mean that the last time i recall seeing you posting so enthusiastically about politics and leaders was around Clegg and the Lib-dems and their 2010 election performance and then coalition with the tories. In ordere to suggest that your reading of the direction of travel wasn't so accurate last time.


What did I say? That I was disgusted that they joined forces or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> What did I say? That I was disgusted that they joined forces or something?


Quite the opposite, after boosting clegg and the lib-dems throughout the election you went onto justify the coalition as lib-dems would be able to curb the tories plans.

(edit: and i haven't dug this up to attack you, i was searching through old posts for something else first thing this morning and came across all this again)


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Quite the opposite, after boosting clegg and the lib-dems throughout the election you went onto justify the coalition as lib-dems would be able to curb the tories plans.


Yuck  how disgusting and wrong I was.
I’ve just searched and feel nauseous.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Team Starmer.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> No, corbyn’s leadership was a bigger factor than Brexit.
> View attachment 200755
> Anyway, I’m repeating myself now as I’ve posted about this before.



Yes I'd rely on this over comparing the actual results in 2017 under corbyn with a we will respect the result position against the actual results in 2019 under corbyn with a we will have another referendum position


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Yuck  how disgusting and wrong I was.
> I’ve just searched and feel nauseous.



Not being snide but perhaps some insight to be gained here


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not being snide but perhaps some insight to be gained here


Certainly scope for circumspect reflection.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes I'd rely on this over comparing the actual results in 2017 under corbyn with a we will respect the result position against the actual results in 2019 under corbyn with a we will have another referendum position


17 and 19 were different though so can’t really compare.  May v Johnson. Dementia tax. Different Labour manifesto. Lib Dem surge a few months out which threatened the Lab vote.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not being snide but perhaps some insight to be gained here


I fully admit to being wrong there, but I’m still supporting starmer.

out of interest - who are you voting for?


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2020)

Dunno about you guys, but I'm never going to let being hilariously wrong in the past stop me making confident political predictions in the present.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

killer b said:


> Dunno about you guys, but I'm never going to let being hilariously wrong in the past stop me making confident political predictions in the present.


if starmer wins and fucks it up though, that doesn’t mean RLB would do any better. And it’s impossible to compare.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I fully admit to being wrong there, but I’m still supporting starmer.
> 
> out of interest - who are you voting for?



Still deciding between nobody or long-bailey through gritted teeth


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> 17 and 19 were different though so can’t really compare.  May v Johnson. Dementia tax. Different Labour manifesto. Lib Dem surge a few months out which threatened the Lab vote.



And different brexit positions. In an election defined by brexit. With the tories basing their entire campaign around getting brexit done. Which they picked for a reason, a very good one. And with labour losing seats almost exclusively in constituencies with a leave majority.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Certainly scope for circumspect reflection.


I was in my early 20s then


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> if starmer wins and fucks it up though, that doesn’t mean RLB would do any better. And it’s impossible to compare.


TBH I have been hilariously wrong in the past, so I try to be a bit more circumspect these days. 

FWIW I _think_ Starmer will probably do ok - and he's going to win the leadership whatever I think anyway. But I also think Labour under him probably won't be something I'm up for being involved with.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 6, 2020)

oryx said:


> How do you think Starmer will go down in what were leave voting areas/ the 'Red Wall'/whatever you call it, given the perception of him as a remainer? (Also as a London centric member of the elite, which I do think is slightly unfair BTW)?


They didn't have a problem voting for an old etonian Tory.


----------



## strung out (Mar 6, 2020)

Not sure why Waitrose is being used as an insult for Starmer. The Waitrose nearest me is populated by Daily Mail readers who have voted in Jacob Rees Mogg for the last four general elections.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> And different brexit positions. In an election defined by brexit. With the tories basing their entire campaign around getting brexit done. Which they picked for a reason, a very good one. And with labour losing seats almost exclusively in constituencies with a leave majority.



If Labour had kept the same position it would have had to convince that the leadership would have been able to resolve ‘dither and delay’ Brexit better than Johnson. 2017 was not the same, it was a choice between poor leaders (May astonishingly poor) in a Brexit mire.

There is no chance whatsoever that a (by 2019) thoroughly exposed Corbyn would have done that. He would have been offering a reheated May deal, but even closer. Other than the second ref caveat that’s what Labour ended up offering.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> If Labour had kept the same position it would have had to convince that the leadership would have been able to resolve ‘dither and delay’ Brexit better than Johnson. 2017 was not the same, it was a choice between poor leaders (May astonishingly poor) in a Brexit mire.
> 
> There is no chance whatsoever that a (by 2019) thoroughly exposed Corbyn would have done that. He would have been offering a reheated May deal, but even closer. Other than the second ref caveat that’s what Labour ended up offering.



That's a pretty big caveat you've slipped in there mate.

Look I'm extremely familiar with all the sophisticated justifications for why actually Labour should have gone more remain etc but its just all bollocks. May being weak, Johnson strong, also bollocks. May went into '17 seen as a formidable powerhouse, 100+ seat majority. She was weak in hindsight because labour's campaign fucked her and it fucked her by taking the crown jewel of brexit and reducing it to a side issue and fighting the campaign on everything else where labour policy was better, more attractive, more in line with public attitudes.

Labour in 2017 and 2019 had the same leadership, the same flaws, the same strengths, and while people can bang on about different manifestos as far as public were concerned they had the same priorities and policy commitments. NHS, housing, jobs. The only substantive difference was its brexit position in an election that was all about brexit because labour allowed the tories the chance to make it all about brexit, and the seats they lost were all seats that had a leave majority. No attempts at sophistication can obscure that. You're wrong, sorry.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

And while we're at it, this isn't at you moose, but the idea that labour saw off the libdem threat. Wtf. If you are labour who do you want the threat to be coming from, the libdems who always underwhelm at general elections or the fucking tories, I mean do me a favour


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> That's a pretty big caveat you've slipped in there mate.
> 
> Look I'm extremely familiar with all the sophisticated justifications for why actually Labour should have gone more remain etc but its just all bollocks. May being weak, Johnson strong, also bollocks. May went into '17 seen as a formidable powerhouse, 100+ seat majority. She was weak in hindsight because labour's campaign fucked her and it fucked her by taking the crown jewel of brexit and reducing it to a side issue and fighting the campaign on everything else where labour policy was better, more attractive, more in line with public attitudes.
> 
> Labour in 2017 and 2019 had the same leadership, the same flaws, the same strengths, and while people can bang on about different manifestos as far as public were concerned they had the same priorities and policy commitments. NHS, housing, jobs. The only substantive difference was its brexit position in an election that was all about brexit because labour allowed the tories the chance to make it all about brexit, and the seats they lost were all seats that had a leave majority. No attempts at sophistication can obscure that. You're wrong, sorry.



There is a very good chance that after two years of personal carpet bombing by the press, Corbyn’s weak 2017 Brexit position would not have been enough to keep those seats. It was doomed. 

Get Brexit, get Johnson. Was always going to happen, just took longer to play out.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> And while we're at it, this isn't at you moose, but the idea that labour saw off the libdem threat. Wtf. If you are labour who do you want the threat to be coming from, the libdems who always underwhelm at general elections or the fucking tories, I mean do me a favour



It’s fair enough to throw that at me. But not because I thought the useless yellow twats would do well, but because the Labour Party appeared to be splitting open on the question and divided parties don’t win. Corbyn simply wasn’t in a strong enough position to pull off a Johnson type expulsion coup.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> There is a very good chance that after two years of personal carpet bombing by the press, Corbyn’s weak 2017 Brexit position would not have been enough to keep those seats. It was doomed.
> 
> Get Brexit, get Johnson. Was always going to happen, just took longer to play out.



He was carpet bombed before '17, I mean come on. There was only one substantive change and the losses all occurred in seats that would object to that change, everything else is just wind


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> It’s fair enough to throw that at me. But not because I thought the useless yellow twats would do well, but because the Labour Party appeared to be splitting open on the question and divided parties don’t win. Corbyn simply wasn’t in a strong enough position to pull off a Johnson type expulsion coup.



Yeah well on the internal labour stuff you may have a point, but then all the more reason not to elect the person at the forefront of that


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> He was carpet bombed before '17, I mean come on. There was only one substantive change and the losses all occurred in seats that would object to that change, everything else is just wind


It wasn't just that though, was it?. He was up against a very different PM in a different situation. You can't just say it was a re-run of 17 - where he didn't win either.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

also labour were never going to be able to out-Brexit the tories, so they were fucked anyway. I don’t think they’d have won those red-wall seats even without the PV policy.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> There is a very good chance that after two years of personal carpet bombing by the press, Corbyn’s weak 2017 Brexit position would not have been enough to keep those seats. It was doomed.
> 
> Get Brexit, get Johnson. Was always going to happen, just took longer to play out.



If Labour had held to its 2017 position - we will honour the result, we will seek to negotiate the best possible agreement that protects workers rights, environmental standards etc  - then the fury at the sense of betrayal would not have manifested itself. That sense of betrayal and a resurgent Tory Party under Johnston simply repeating 'get Brexit Done' was an entirely predictable and devastating combination. So predictable that many of us did predict it. Yes Corbyn was a massive issue on the doorstep but it was unquestionably Brexit that generated the really and deep fury 

Had Labour stuck to its position - and let's be clear that was Corbyn's preference - then in remain areas it would have then been a case of explaining why democratic decisions must be respected, why a LD vote is always a wasted vote and why Labour would safeguard lots of the things that remainers held dear. 

We will never know how it would be turned out. But we do know a) how the alternative played out and b) who was at the centre of moving Labour to the mess that was its final position on the matter.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> also labour were never going to be able to out-Brexit the tories, so they were fucked anyway. I don’t think they’d have won those red-wall seats even without the PV policy.



It wasn't possible but more importantly it wasn't necessary. The anger was not at the extent of Brexit but at a democratic vote being overturned.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If Labour had held to its 2017 position - we will honour the result, we will seek to negotiate the best possible agreement that protects workers rights, environmental standards etc  - then the fury at the sense of betrayal would not have manifested itself. That sense of betrayal and a resurgent Tory Party under Johnston simply repeating 'get Brexit Done' was an entirely predictable and devastating combination. So predictable that many of us did predict it. Yes Corbyn was a massive issue on the doorstep but it was unquestionably Brexit that generated the really and deep fury
> 
> Had Labour stuck to its position - and let's be clear that was Corbyn's preference - then in remain areas it would have then been a case of explaining why democratic decisions must be respected, why a LD vote is always a wasted vote and why Labour would safeguard lots of the things that remainers held dear.
> 
> We will never know how it would be turned out. But we do know a) how the alternative played out and b) who was at the centre of moving Labour to the mess that was its final position on the matter.


But wouldn’t this have required Labour to support BoZo (or May’s) deal?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If Labour had held to its 2017 position - we will honour the result, we will seek to negotiate the best possible agreement that protects workers rights, environmental standards etc  - then the fury at the sense of betrayal would not have manifested itself. That sense of betrayal and a resurgent Tory Party under Johnston simply repeating 'get Brexit Done' was an entirely predictable and devastating combination. So predictable that many of us did predict it. Yes Corbyn was a massive issue on the doorstep but it was unquestionably Brexit that generated the really and deep fury
> 
> Had Labour stuck to its position - and let's be clear that was Corbyn's preference - then in remain areas it would have then been a case of explaining why democratic decisions must be respected, why a LD vote is always a wasted vote and why Labour would safeguard lots of the things that remainers held dear.
> 
> We will never know how it would be turned out. But we do know a) how the alternative played out and b) who was at the centre of moving Labour to the mess that was its final position on the matter.



Fair enough, but didn’t that surge of fury start before Labour abandoned its position, with the Brexit Party and the EU elections? Labour position didn’t make it immune, it was losing ground from then on.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> But wouldn’t this have required Labour to support BoZo (or May’s) deal?



Not necessarily. They could have campaigned for their own demands and their vision. The key was simple - they needed to respect the outcome of the referendum and the vote. There wasn't one Labour to Tory switcher I met who was doing so over the detail - it was a matter of the principle and the lack of respect. It was about the fact that people had worked out that Labour didn't care about their opinion.

In my view, and I have banged on for years about this and won't again, there was a massive missed chance here. Labour could have exploited the Tory civil war over Europe and won mass support for a deal based upon a progressive social democratic brexit and future.

Instead, and I also blame Starmer in part for this, Labour became obsessed with defining its position in _response _to what the Tories did and purely via Parliamentary games.  Not only did that only increase the fury towards Labour but it also cost Corbyn the outsider status he enjoyed in 2017.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 6, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Fair enough, but didn’t that surge of fury start before Labour abandoned its position, with the Brexit Party and the EU elections? Labour position didn’t make it immune, it was losing ground from then on.



It did. But Labour's position had also shifted before the EU election.


----------



## Chilli.s (Mar 6, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Did anyone catch this interview RLB with Andrew Neil? Apparently it didn’t go well but I’ve only watched some of the short clips.


 

That's not too good, she needed to stop him talking over her, not assertive enough.


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2020)

__





						Left for Dead?: The Strange Death and Rebirth of the Labour Party eBook: Goodall, Lewis: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
					

Left for Dead?: The Strange Death and Rebirth of the Labour Party eBook: Goodall, Lewis: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store



					www.amazon.co.uk
				





Lewis Goodall, ex Sky News/Now Newsnight((Grand Dad a Docker, Dad worked at Longbridge, not sure how long)seemed to predict the rise and possible fall of Corbynism in his book
'Left for Dead?: The Strange Death and Rebirth of the Labour Party' Not sure if any of the candidates are going to win back the sort of people he writes about.


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I was in my early 20s then



You may be the youngest poster on Urban!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 6, 2020)

Labour should have been against brexit from the start, it's purely an idea from the right wing of Tory party. 

They could have hammered them on the mess they were making of it and the deal Johnson ended up with, a border down the Irish sea, but Corbyn was a muddled mess all along.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 6, 2020)

treelover said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a great book!


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2020)

i thought he was more than 30, his packages for Sky News 'The Line', going to left behind areas, etc, were often very moving and astute, probably a bad move going to Newsnight as it is about to have its budget slashed.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It wasn't just that though, was it?. He was up against a very different PM in a different situation. You can't just say it was a re-run of 17 - where he didn't win either.



Yes, a different situation in which the tories could focus everything on 'getting brexit done' at expense of anything else. So why could they do that in 2019 when they couldn't in 2017? I mean fucks sake, everybody can have their own political views but this is about something that is plain and obvious and simple


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, a different situation in which the tories could focus everything on 'getting brexit done' at expense of anything else. So why could they do that in 2019 when they couldn't in 2017? I mean fucks sake, everybody can have their own political views but this is about something that is plain and obvious and simple


Even if Labour did keep their 2017 position, that meant more negotiations and a soft brexit, so they would still get hammered on that, you can't out-Brexit the Tories.


----------



## gosub (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, a different situation in which the tories could focus everything on 'getting brexit done' at expense of anything else. So why could they do that in 2019 when they couldn't in 2017? I mean fucks sake, everybody can have their own political views but this is about something that is plain and obvious and simple


I'm not sure Tories actually wanted to win in 2017 When your core base is the affluent and the older voter then sell your house to provide care for care in your old age was an odd policy. But then pretty much everything May did seemed like an object lesson in what not to do, maybe she saw it as a Nixon goes to China.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I was in my early 20s then


Not really having a go, but...I really don't see what that's got to do with anything.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Even if Labour did keep their 2017 position, that meant more negotiations and a soft brexit, so they would still get hammered on that, you can't out-Brexit the Tories.



They didn't have to 'out brexit' the tories. They just had to not demonstrate a lack of respect for public agency, and then have room to campaign on stuff that isn't brexit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> They didn't have to 'out brexit' the tories. They just had to not demonstrate a lack of respect for public agency, and then have room to campaign on stuff that isn't brexit.


It's exactly that lack of respect, but urged more publicly, more overtly that this goon thinks would have been a better option for labour. Basically because he supports remain and doesn't care about the actual outcome of taking such a position. We got a taste of it in the actual election and not a whit of understanding what it would have meant to go full-remain as he/they foot stamped has been shown since. Never mind taking responsibility.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 6, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Not really having a go, but...I really don't see what that's got to do with anything.



She was at SOAS


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 6, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> It's exactly that lack of respect, but urged more publicly, more overtly that this goon thinks would have been a better option for labour. Basically because he supports remain and doesn't care about the actual outcome of taking such a position. We got a taste of it in the actual election and not a whit of understanding what it would have meant to go full-remain as he/they foot stamped has been shown since. Never mind taking responsibility.


I think a better option for Labour would have been to send Corbyn off a long time ago.
 I do support remain, and the tory brexit will be in full swing shortly - it won’t be something I voted for.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> They just had to not demonstrate a lack of respect for public agency





butchersapron said:


> It's exactly that lack of respect, but urged more publicly, more overtly that this goon thinks would have been a better option for labour. Basically because he supports remain and doesn't care about the actual outcome of taking such a position.





sleaterkinney said:


> it won’t be something I voted for.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 6, 2020)

If it was a overwhelming vote for leave then yeah, but 52% to 48%?. Nope.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think a better option for Labour would have been to send Corbyn off a long time ago.
> I do support remain, and the tory brexit will be in full swing shortly - it won’t be something I voted for.


Did you have a vote? In either the election or referendum?

Regardless, you certainly stamped your feet loud enough with similar like-minded people to get the policy adopted by labour that ensured a tory brexit took place. Well done.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

I've never accepted the wales v romania result in 1993 for similar reasons and maintain that we did make the world cup. The people's world cup.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If it was a overwhelming vote for leave then yeah, but 52% to 48%?. Nope.


Of course, then it makes total sense to agitate for something that ensures that the thing that you oppose happens. Then blame it on damn lefties. Not your own policy being adopted - but those who oppose that policy.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> She was at SOAS


You've just reminded me of the other good thing about SOAS that I forgot the other day...the free lunchtime grub from the Harry Kanes between the steps and the arse end of the Institute.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

brogdale said:


> You've just reminded me of the other good thing about SOAS that I forgot the other day...the free lunchtime grub from the Harry Kanes between the steps and the arse end of the Institute.



What is the Harry Kanes slang for?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What is the Harry Kanes slang for?


The Neil Young song, or the Bob Dylan one?

_This is the story of Harry Kane’s._


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

danny la rouge said:


> The Neil Young song, or the Bob Dylan one?
> 
> _This is the story of Harry Kane’s._



Was hoping it would be more akin to dropping a couple of gary abletts


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

A farmers market. Just wait till they pack up at 4. Loads left behind


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What is the Harry Kanes slang for?



Sometimes it's well tasty. 
They do demos as well.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What is the Harry Kanes slang for?



Hare Krishna. They are religious group based in West End. They have a place in Soho. 

Didn't realise brogdale was in London.

They are nice bunch. They give out food in SOAS near Russell Square. 

Mixed bunch of spaced out hippies and Indian people.

Always trying to sell me their books in Oxford street.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Sometimes it's well tasty.
> They do demos as well.
> 
> View attachment 200836



They gave free food at the Extinction Rebellion demos. I was impressed. They went up in my estimation


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2020)

I wouldn't take a thing from them.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> They gave free food at the Extinction Rebellion demos. I was impressed. They went up in my estimation


Yeah, I used to eat at Govindas...till it got a bit pricey.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

Ah yeah I know what hari hari krishnas are, we even had them in wrexham in the 80s, I accidently ate in one of their places in cardiff a couple of years ago


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> They gave free food at the Extinction Rebellion demos. I was impressed. They went up in my estimation


And rape cops too, presumably.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Oh, and the (post-Xmas) Brussels sprout curry they included in the Thali...I haven't been back since that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Brussels sprout curry



See BA is right, can't trust 'em


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> See BA is right, can't trust 'em


Well, it's quite true that they won't cook with onions for some reason or other.
Wrong'uns.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> also labour were never going to be able to out-Brexit the tories, so they were fucked anyway. I don’t think they’d have won those red-wall seats even without the PV policy.



I have some sympathy with this position. In Lambeth  (London) nearly all the  Labour party members I know and Labour voters were Remain.

As well as 99% of the people I work with.

They stuck with Labour. I didnt have a problem with Labours position. A second vote on a deal.

A lot of my friends opposed Leave. And they arent well off middle classes.

At work there was a lot of talk of let the Northerners have there Brexit as Im sick of this. Resignation that Brexit was shit but let it happen so we can move on.

But I agree Labour party were fucked anyway.

I do however think if Labour party had let the Northerners have there Brexit us in London would have still stuck to voting Labour. The LD surge didn't happen. Faced with the ballot box my fellow Londoners stuck to voting Labour. Im rather proud that I live in London that that happened. Voting Tory is crap. I dont think Labour voters in my area would have thrown there toys out of the pram if Corbyn had stuck to "respecting" the referendum and decided instead to vote for the party that brought us the deportation of Windrush generation. ie a racist party instead as a protest. As the Northern Labour voters did.

So it perhaps was tactical mistake by Labour party.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 7, 2020)

Revisionist rubbish from Nandy. Unwavering efforts against rightist factions would have been justified but Corbyn never waged such a campaign. He gave Nandy a cabinet position which she resigned from before backing the anti-Corbyn putsch. Kinda wish I’d given her third preference now. A real snake in the grass.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 7, 2020)

I agree with RLB, Corbyn’s leadership deserves a 10/10. The reactionaries and scabs of the electorate get a big fat zero.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 7, 2020)

Bring back the stocks


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2020)

Haven't even had my voting papers yet


----------



## oryx (Mar 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Revisionist rubbish from Nandy. Unwavering efforts against rightist factions would have been justified but Corbyn never waged such a campaign. He gave Nandy a cabinet position which she resigned from before backing the anti-Corbyn putsch. Kinda wish I’d given her third preference now. A real snake in the grass.



Yeah, 0/10 to Nandy for ability to unite the party. She didn't have to say all that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 7, 2020)

treelover said:


> Haven't even had my voting papers yet



check your e-mails boomer.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I agree with RLB, Corbyn’s leadership deserves a 10/10. The reactionaries and scabs of the electorate get a big fat zero.



<sigh>


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 7, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> <sigh>



Tory wanker.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Tory wanker.



Cunt.

I don't suppose it occurs to you, as smegma can't actually think, that my response was due to the answer that Labour activists got on the doorsteps time and time again' I won't vote for Corbyn'.

Anyway jog on you heap of dog vomit.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 7, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Cunt.
> 
> I don't suppose it occurs to you, as smegma can't actually think, that my respnse was due to the answer that Labour activists got on the doorsteps time and time again' I won't vote for Corbyn'.
> 
> Anyway jog on you heap of dog vomit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2020)

jesus christ said:
			
		

> I don't suppose it occurs to you, as smegma can't actually think


A Christian, ladies and gentlemen.  A _christian_.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 7, 2020)

Had my vote through, zero faith in any of them though tbh so holding off on voting. Will probably suck it up and go RLB eventually. Then probably leave the party. Moving to a new place soon so will see what local ward is like and if people are doing anything. If there's nothing useful going on that'll be me done. Think I'll just go on Twitter and complain about being 'politically homeless' until The Guardian gives me a column instead.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Revisionist rubbish from Nandy. Unwavering efforts against rightist factions would have been justified but Corbyn never waged such a campaign. He gave Nandy a cabinet position which she resigned from before backing the anti-Corbyn putsch. Kinda wish I’d given her third preference now. A real snake in the grass.




It’s been evident from the start that Nandy’s endless repetition that the Party needs to change is a war cry for some serious ‘tough medicine’ of the we won three elections under Blair type. 

So her, Sir Keir Waitrose Decaff Soya Latte (Extra lukewarm) or gravitas defying PFI RLB. 

I’ve said it before, strict three year probation for the winner and if it’s not working start again.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 7, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Cunt.
> 
> I don't suppose it occurs to you, as smegma can't actually think, that my response was due to the answer that Labour activists got on the doorsteps time and time again' I won't vote for Corbyn'.



They’re wankers too.


Mr Moose said:


> It’s been evident from the start that Nandy’s endless repetition that the Party needs to change is a war cry for some serious ‘tough medicine’ of the we won three elections under Blair type.
> 
> So her, Sir Keir Waitrose Decaff Soya Latte (Extra lukewarm) or gravitas defying PFI RLB.
> 
> I’ve said it before, strict three year probation for the winner and if it’s not working start again.



I regret giving Nandy my second preference, Starmzy for all his limits isn’t a lying snitch. Comrade queen RLB is good enough, I don’t care about her lack of charisma - only fascists and idiots care about that shit.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> They’re wankers too.
> 
> 
> I regret giving Nandy my second preference, Starmzy for all his limits isn’t a lying snitch. Comrade queen RBL is good enough, I don’t care about her lack of charisma - only fascists and idiots care about that shit.



Oh well, you've just confirmed my initial view. Enjoy the decades in the wilderness comrade.


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I agree with RLB, Corbyn’s leadership deserves a 10/10. The reactionaries and scabs of the electorate get a big fat zero.



😂


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 7, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> 😂



Nice of you to have included your IQ in your username. 



Sasaferrato said:


> Oh well, you've just confirmed my initial view. Enjoy the decades in the wilderness comrade.



Enjoy your boot licking, and the illusion of power and control it gives you.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 7, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I agree with RLB, Corbyn’s leadership deserves a 10/10. The reactionaries and scabs of the electorate get a big fat zero.


Can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 8, 2020)

oryx said:


> Yeah, 0/10 to Nandy for ability to unite the party. She didn't have to say all that.


By this stage she knows she's not going to be leader (if she didn't a long time ago) it's about positioning herself afterwards


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> By this stage she knows she's not going to be leader (if she didn't a long time ago) it's about positioning herself afterwards


Certainly the 'Leader' of blueLab, now...and probably already calculating positioning for when Starmer's lurch to the right fails at the next GE.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Mar 8, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> No, corbyn’s leadership was a bigger factor than Brexit.
> View attachment 200755
> Anyway, I’m repeating myself now as I’ve posted about this before.


Why did Corbz get so many votes in 2017 then?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Certainly the 'Leader' of blueLab, now...and probably already calculating positioning for when Starmer's lurch to the right fails at the next GE.



I don’t think so. On both counts. Her policy ‘offer’ is deliberately impenetrable in places and often contradictory. But what emerges when she has been pressed on the detail are politics very similar to Starmer. She’s a better communicator. She cloaks the analysis in northern common sense language (as opposed to Starmer’s metropolitan narrating class pomposity) but fundamentally she ends with the same diagnosis as him.

On your second point I think she is trying to do two things here: ensure a high profile shadow cabinet role once Starmer is elected and I expect her to try to rack up enough votes to get Starmer in on second preference votes


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I don’t think so. On both counts. Her policy ‘offer’ is deliberately impenetrable in places and often contradictory. But what emerges when she has been pressed on the detail are politics very similar to Starmer. She’s a better communicator. She cloaks the analysis in northern common sense language (as opposed to Starmer’s metropolitan narrating class pomposity) but fundamentally she ends with the same diagnosis as him.
> 
> On your second point I think she is trying to do two things here: ensure a high profile shadow cabinet role once Starmer is elected and I expect her to try to rack up enough votes to get Starmer in on second preference votes


Fair points, but her long game will have give enough distance from Starmer to allow her to conduct the same sort of schtick when he fails.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Yeah agree with smokeandsteam. Nandy's politics are pretty much same old same old (post) soft leftism labourite bollocks, she just does a semi decent job at obscuring her politics to play to different galleries. Her voting record and history doesn't really support a blue labour true believer, they both just see use in each other (like with miliband, also dreary same old post soft left)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Mind you, I did it this morning, narrowed my eyes and gritted my teeth and voted RLB and Nandy as second pref, didn't use third pref, fuck off posh chin. Next step is to cancel political fund, fuck participating in this bollocks again


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Mind you, I did it this morning, narrowed my eyes and gritted my teeth and voted RLB and Nandy as second pref, didn't use third pref, fuck off posh chin. Next step is to cancel political fund, fuck participating in this bollocks again



who did you vote deputy?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> who did you vote deputy?



Rayner and then on spur of moment and as a fuck it I went burgon as second pref then came over all funny feeling. What a shit show


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah agree with smokeandsteam. Nandy's politics are pretty much same old same old (post) soft leftism labourite bollocks, she just does a semi decent job at obscuring her politics to play to different galleries. Her voting record and history doesn't really support a blue labour true believer, they both just see use in each other (like with miliband, also dreary same old post soft left)



We also need to stop the Ed Miliband redux comparisons with Waitrose. The role he’ll play is far closer to Kinnock. Elected using the language of the left (and to be fair Kinnock had a better track record and use of the language) to move Labour to the right as fast as he can


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

Like proper tidy I’ll be resigning the political fund the moment this man is elected leader.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

This is particularly low:


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

No other candidate has begged for money like this and the way it is presented as if its donations for labour to fight the tories.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

Further evidence, if it was needed, that Waitrose is unfit for the leadership of the Labour Party. No lessons learnt from December. The smug insistence that he knows best. An explicit refusal to accept why the approach is toxic to voters


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> This is particularly low:
> 
> View attachment 200977


Why have you signed up to receive email communications from him if you loathe him so?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Further evidence, if it was needed, that Waitrose is unfit for the leadership of the Labour Party. No lessons learnt from December. The smug insistence that he knows best. An explicit refusal to accept why the approach is toxic to voters




An approach backed by the members of the labour party.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Why have you signed up to receive email communications from him if you loathe him so?


Don't suppose it's active; I presume that the candidates forked out £6k for the members, affiliates & supporters so they could bomb out the emails etc


----------



## cantsin (Mar 8, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Why have you signed up to receive email communications from him if you loathe him so?



we all f*cking got them


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> An approach backed by the members of the labour party.



can you point me to the policy that demands rejoining the EU?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Why have you signed up to receive email communications from him if you loathe him so?



I haven't, that was sent to every member and 'affiliated member' (in an affiliated trade union w/ political fund). I'm not even in the labour party.

Would have thought you'd have known that, you seem pretty heavy in


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Tbf this is at least as bad:


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> can you point me to the policy that demands rejoining the EU?



Can you point me to Keir Starmer demanding rejoining the EU?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Joined a union to defend my conditions and end up getting emails from chris fucking addison or personal injury solicitors, fucking modern trade unionism


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Can you point me to Keir Starmer demanding rejoining the EU?



Did you read the link I posted? Unlike RLB and Nandy Starmer refuses to rule out seeking to rejoin the EU.

Leaving aside the fact that this isn’t party policy - as you suggest it is - but after the referendum and the GE how much more evidence does Starmer need that his politics and instincts run counter to ordinary people? What does it say about his political judgment? Why would labour elect someone so out of touch?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Did you read the link I posted? Unlike RLB and Nandy Starmer refuses to rule out seeking to rejoin the EU.
> 
> Leaving aside the fact that this isn’t party policy - as you suggest it is - but after the referendum and the GE how much more evidence does Starmer need that his politics and instincts run counter to ordinary people? What does it say about his political judgment? Why would labour elect someone so out of touch?



Because the members prefer him or his policies to the other choices?

I didn’t suggest it was party policy. Simply that the members would like it to be so. Reflected if they choose to elect Starmer as their leader.

Ordinary people that aren’t members of the labour party?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Because the members prefer him or his policies to the other choices?
> 
> I didn’t suggest it was party policy. Simply that the members would like it to be so. Reflected if they choose to elect Starmer as their leader.
> 
> Ordinary people that aren’t members of the labour party?



What evidence have you got that Labour Party members want a campaign to rejoin the EU? Are you suggesting that they are as stupid as Starmer?

The idea that in 5 years time/10 years time there will be a popular impulse to rejoin the flagging neo-liberal EU project is frankly, fucking ridiculous.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What evidence have you got that Labour Party members want a campaign to rejoin the EU? Are you suggesting that they are as stupid as Starmer?
> 
> The idea that in 5 years time/10 years time there will be a popular impulse to rejoin the flagging neo-liberal EU project is frankly, fucking ridiculous.



If he said it and they vote for him.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Tbh a huge chunk of the membership are as stupid as starmer as to think it's a good idea, dunno whether a majority but there are plenty of them. The bellends.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbh a huge chunk of the membership are as stupid as starmer as to think it's a good idea, dunno whether a majority but there are plenty of them. The bellends.



Not the racist bellends that voted Tory or didn’t vote for Corbyn then.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> If he said it and they vote for him.



I think Waitrose might find it’s one of his floated ideas that will need to be quietly buried. He might be pompous and out of touch but, Unite for example, won’t tolerate his dilettantism on Europe


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Not the racist bellends that voted Tory or didn’t vote for Corbyn then.



What proportion of the membership of the labour party do you think voted tory, expressed as a percentage


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I think Waitrose might find it’s one of his floated ideas that will need to be quietly buried. He might be pompous and out of touch but, Unite for example, others won’t tolerate his dilettantism



I’m sure the labour party won’t ever be re-elected anyway in my lifetime anyway. Since the left complain about leaders that appeal to the majority of voters. And the right complain about leaders that appeal to most lefties.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Btw the posts from the notorious mr smalls above, of the you are remain or you are a racist ilk, are indicative of the dense rump in labour that I'm referring to


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What proportion of the membership of the labour party do you think voted tory, expressed as a percentage


 
I wasn’t talking about members.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I wasn’t talking about members.



But that's who we were talking about though. Fuck off somewhere else if you want to chat about something else


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Btw the posts from the notorious mr smalls above, of the you are remain or you are a racist ilk, are indicative of the dense rump in labour that I'm referring to



How dense do you have to be that the majority of the working class are racist?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> But that's who we were talking about though. Fuck off somewhere else if you want to chat about something else



Fuck off yourself somewhere you can control what people say.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> How dense do you have to be that the majority of the working class are racist?



Not sure I follow. Are you saying that you think a majority of w/c people are racist or something else


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> How dense do you have to be that the majority of the working class are racist?



Fucking hell. How shit are you and your politics?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

This is the same dickhead who thinks anybody in the RMT is a goosestepper isn't it


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Fucking hell. How shit are you and your politics?



So my politics are shit because a lot of people are racist and this includes the working class. Its called reality.

Which is why the working class love voting Tory.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

What class are you B.I.G


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What class are you B.I.G



Depends how you define it. I’d identify as working class. Others would say I’m middle class.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbf this is at least as bad:View attachment 201028


ha, I was just coming here to post this. hilarious.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> So my politics are shit because a lot of people are racist and this includes the working class. Its called reality.
> 
> Which is why the working class love voting Tory.




you are all over the place.

Voting leave means you are racist = most working class people are racist.

Two wrongs - don’t make one right


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> you are all over the place.
> 
> Voting leave means you are racist = most working class people are racist.
> 
> Two wrongs - don’t make one right



Most working class people especially those living outside London are racist and therefore voted leave. I don’t care about this. Its just the way it is. Its all the lefties that feel the need to deny it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Depends how you define it. I’d identify as working class. Others would say I’m middle class.



Assisted place was it


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Most working class people especially those living outside London are racist and therefore voted leave. I don’t care about this. Its just the way it is. Its all the lefties that feel the need to deny it.



Firstly, go and have a look at the history of racism and fascism in Britain and its strongholds.

Secondly, go and meet some ordinary people and sit and listen to them.

Thirdly, stop posting this stuff and embarrassing yourself. Seriously.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Assisted place was it



Yes.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Firstly, go and have a look at the history of racism and fascism in Britain and its strongholds.
> 
> Secondly, go and meet some ordinary people and sit and listen to them.
> 
> Thirdly, stop posting this stuff and embarrassing yourself. Seriously.



I talk to ordinary people all the time who generally say there are too many foreigners in this country.


----------



## JimW (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Most working class people especially those living outside London are racist and therefore voted leave. I don’t care about this. Its just the way it is. Its all the lefties that feel the need to deny it.


Another sad result of the decline of genuine working class movement is it now actually matters that idiots like you think this shit.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 8, 2020)

JimW said:


> Another sad result of the decline of genuine working class movement is it now actually matters that idiots like you think this shit.



Its not that its true and reflected by their voting. They can’t vote for Corbyn cos Johnson offers them a way away from the foreigners.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 8, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Its not that its true and reflected by their voting. They can’t vote for Corbyn cos Johnson offers them a way away from the foreigners.



race was the driving force behind the leave vote = race was the defining issue of the election.

Two more wrongs. 

You aren’t very good at this are you?


----------



## gosub (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> This is the same dickhead who thinks anybody in the RMT is a goosestepper isn't it


Tbf They are fucking supposed to make the trains run on time (waiting on yet another delay)


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I haven't, that was sent to every member and 'affiliated member' (in an affiliated trade union w/ political fund). I'm not even in the labour party.
> 
> Would have thought you'd have known that, you seem pretty heavy in


I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Time for us to predict Starmer's first round victory %?
> 
> I'll kick off with 61%
> 
> Anyone?


Maybe 62%?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 8, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Why did Corbz get so many votes in 2017 then?


Was that the 2017 election we lost despite being up against a universally loathed Theresa may?

corbz seems like a decent guy, but he was... rubbish.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Was that the 2017 election we lost despite being up against a universally loathed Theresa may?
> 
> corbz seems like a decent guy, but he was... rubbish.



The 2017 election when serious people were predicting a tory walk in the park and a 100 seat majority with labour coming from its weakest parliamentary position in a quarter of a century but ended in the tories losing their majority, yeah that one


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Was that the 2017 election we lost despite being up against a universally loathed Theresa may?


solid revisionism here. May's approval ratings were spectacular before the election campaign.


----------



## gosub (Mar 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> solid revisionism here. May's approval ratings were spectacular before the election campaign.


And she offered her base sell your house to pay for care for the elderly whilst Mr Corbyn told those those disillusioed youngsters that had believed Clegg on student lia s that he would cancel them


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2020)

so what? The only reason the 2017 election got to be about anything except brexit - and Labour's policies get given a hearing at all - is because Labour's 2017 manifesto more or less neutralised brexit as an issue. So it had to be fought on other terrain, on which the tories were found wanting.


----------



## gosub (Mar 8, 2020)

I think 2017 UK voted mainly Brexit, with view to MPs working collectively which they didn't which is why Get Brexit done worked in 2019 (could elaborate but that's nutshell) But also in 2017 elderly care cost Tories some votes and turion fee saw an increase in youth vote that Labour benefutt d from 2019 Labout crossed publics credible deliverable Ruby on over broadband and a a Brexit position that was only credibly - x


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> so what? The only reason the 2017 election got to be about anything except brexit - and Labour's policies get given a hearing at all - is because Labour's 2017 manifesto more or less neutralised brexit as an issue. So it had to be fought on other terrain, on which the tories were found wanting.



Well this was exactly it. Which is why the 2019 brexit position of, in effect, a second ref, and in perception remain, was so shit. The key lesson of 2017 success - neutralise brexit, fight on other stuff - just ignored. And still ignored.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well this was exactly it. Which is why the 2019 brexit position of, in effect, a second ref, and in perception remain, was so shit. The key lesson of 2017 success - neutralise brexit, fight on other stuff - just ignored. And still ignored.


I don't think this is really the whole story either though: it wasn't ignored - Corbyn in particular obviously saw the danger. But in 2017 there was a wide consensus among Labour members and voters that Brexit was settled and the referendum should be honoured, which meant Labour could adopt a pro-brexit (or really post-brexit) policy. That consensus no longer existed by 2019. It still doesn't exist now, and this campaign - for the votes of the Labour Party membership, not of the wider electorate - needs to be seen in that light.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well this was exactly it. Which is why the 2019 brexit position of, in effect, a second ref, and in perception remain, was so shit. The key lesson of 2017 success - neutralise brexit, fight on other stuff - just ignored. And still ignored.


I keep forgetting the success of 2017.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I keep forgetting the success of 2017.


Why did you bother posting this? You know what he means.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I keep forgetting the success of 2017.



Then you're an idiot. Achieving a hung parliament was clearly a success in the context. The BBC even made a documentary about it. Actually winning a majority would have required a greater shift than ever seen in one GE. As it is, its vote went up nearly 10 points, the biggest increase in one GE since 1945.

I don't get this stuff tbh. Not arsed what people's politics are, why not just deal with things as they are, learn the positive and negative lessons and apply them to your own political objectives instead of doing the make believe thing. What's the point. May as well go I don't like tories so going to ignore them taking seats in 2019 that have never been tory before.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> I don't think this is really the whole story either though: it wasn't ignored - Corbyn in particular obviously saw the danger. But in 2017 there was a wide consensus among Labour members and voters that Brexit was settled and the referendum should be honoured, which meant Labour could adopt a pro-brexit (or really post-brexit) policy. That consensus no longer existed by 2019. It still doesn't exist now, and this campaign - for the votes of the Labour Party membership, not of the wider electorate - needs to be seen in that light.



Yeah fair enough in that brexit less settled in '19 than '17, although it was still that key error of letting the tories make it a brexit election that was key electorally between the two


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> Why did you bother posting this? You know what he means.


He was up against a shit PM who didn't show up to the debates and was shafting her biggest voting block and he still lost, stop painting it like some sort of victory.  Its bs.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

Now


sleaterkinney said:


> He was up against a shit PM who didn't show up to the debates and was shafting her biggest voting block and he still lost, stop painting it like some sort of victory.  Its bs.



Then


sleaterkinney said:


> It's great timing by May, instead of trying to get a hard brexit through with a small majority now she will have a big one and be able to push through whatever.
> 
> The only bright spot is that we may see the back of Corbyn a bit sooner.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't get this stuff tbh. Not arsed what people's politics are, why not just deal with things as they are, learn the positive and negative lessons and apply them to your own political objectives instead of doing the make believe thing. What's the point. May as well go I don't like tories so going to ignore them taking seats in 2019 that have never been tory before.


This from a trot.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Now
> 
> 
> Then


I dunno, I'm not going to go back though years of your posts. It's a bit weird and sad tbh.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 8, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> This from a trot.



Lol


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 8, 2020)

Brexit is done and dusted anyway,  pointless going over it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 8, 2020)

Times reporting Trevor Philips suspended from Llabour with immediate effect, accusdations of islamaphobia, despite him championing the concept while at the EOC.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 9, 2020)

treelover said:


> Times reporting Trevor Philips suspended from Llabour with immediate effect, accusdations of islamaphobia, despite him championing the concept while at the EOC.



Championing islamophobia is pretty bad though


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2020)

I meant he championed the idea it existed and needed a response


----------



## andysays (Mar 9, 2020)

Here's the Phillips story in case anyone wants to read it

Trevor Phillips suspended from Labour over Islamophobia allegations


> The former UK equality watchdog chief, Trevor Phillips' has been suspended from the Labour Party over allegations of Islamophobia. The Times newspaper reported the anti-racism campaigner is being investigated over past comments dating back years.





> Mr Phillips, ex-chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said Labour was in danger of collapsing into a "brutish, authoritarian cult". Labour said it takes complaints about Islamophobia "extremely seriously".


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What proportion of the membership of the labour party do you think voted tory, expressed as a percentage


Good luck but its' really not worth bothering with this horrible anti-humanist prat Proper Tidy


Proper Tidy said:


> This is the same dickhead who thinks anybody in the RMT is a goosestepper isn't it


Yeah,


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Good luck but its' really not worth bothering with this horrible anti-humanist prat Proper Tidy
> 
> Yeah,



I just learned something about the RMT I didn’t know. Black cab drivers can be members. Certainly no racism in the RMT 😂


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> He was up against a shit PM who didn't show up to the debates and was shafting her biggest voting block and he still lost, stop painting it like some sort of victory.  Its bs.


Johnson was shit and avoided debates & scrutiny throughout this election campaign too. and yet here we are, with an 80 seat Tory majority.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I just learned something about the RMT I didn’t know. Black cab drivers can be members. Certainly no racism in the RMT 😂



What about you, are you free of prejudge or do you think perhaps you hate/fear working class people maybe


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> What about you, are you free of prejudge or do you think perhaps you hate/fear working class people maybe



The London ones don’t seem as racist so im doing fine thank you. Should I go earn more money as a builder to reinforce my working class credentials or go buy a house in kent rather than privately renting to boost it as well.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> The London ones don’t seem as racist so im doing fine thank you. Should I go earn more money as a builder to reinforce my working class credentials or go buy a house in kent rather than privately renting to boost it as well.



So your sole guide to whether somebody is racist is whether they voted leave or remain? Theresa May, not a racist. 

Just weird how you seem to hate anybody with any sort of manual job, almost like it tells us something about you


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> So your sole guide to whether somebody is racist is whether they voted leave or remain? Theresa May, not a racist.
> 
> Just weird how you seem to hate anybody with any sort of manual job, almost like it tells us something about you



Is my job not manual? Certainly more manual than driving a taxi.

You keep claiming things I haven’t said. I personally know a person that voted leave who fought racism his whole life.

Is that to say that the majority of people that voted leave didn’t do so because they want less foreign voices spoken in their local park.

Keep pretending things are the way you want them to be to fit your views.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Is my job not manual? Certainly more manual than driving a taxi.
> 
> You keep claiming things I haven’t said. I personally know a person that voted leave who fought racism his whole life.
> 
> ...



Ok so you don't think leave/remain is a clear cut barometer of how racist somebody is. What did you mean by this then?



B.I.G said:


> The London ones don’t seem as racist



Funny how so far you've cited tube drivers, engine drivers, and taxi drivers as specifically racist, not for example estate agents or insurance brokers, just a bit of a them. Something to ponder as you defo spend your day being a builder perhaps


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ok so you don't think leave/remain is a clear cut barometer of how racist somebody is. What did you mean by this then?
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how so far you've cited tube drivers, engine drivers, and taxi drivers as specifically racist, not for example estate agents or insurance brokers, just a bit of a them. Something to ponder as you defo spend your day being a builder perhaps



I don’t know any estate agents or insurance brokers. If I meet one I will find out about their views and let you know.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I don’t know any estate agents or insurance brokers. If I meet one I will find out about their views and let you know.



Ok, appreciated. 

What about why you think various types of drivers in london are less racist than drivers elsewhere, which defo isn't based on leave/remain, what's your reasoning there Bob?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ok, appreciated.
> 
> What about why you think various types of drivers in london are less racist than drivers elsewhere, which defo isn't based on leave/remain, what's your reasoning there Bob?



Black cab drivers in London are definitely amongst the most racist of all groups.

I’m not sure I said what you say I said so I’m going to leave it there


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Championing islamophobia is pretty bad though



How has he championed Islamaphobia?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Black cab drivers in London are definitely amongst the most racist of all groups.
> 
> I’m not sure I said what you say I said so I’m going to leave it there



Have you seen the film Parasite BIG? If so what did you think of the dynamic between the driver and the homeowner? Did any of it resonate with you?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Have you seen the film Parasite BIG? If so what did you think of the dynamic between the driver and the homeowner? Did any of it resonate with you?



I haven’t seen it. I don’t watch foreign language films as much anymore.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I'm not sure I said what you say I said so I’m going to leave it there





B.I.G said:


> The London ones don’t seem as racist



Cheerio then bob


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Cheerio then bob



I mean the people in London. Not just the “drivers”. Do you not think people are less racist in London than the rest of England.
But yeah Cheerio. Enjoy pretending things are the way you want them to be.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

andysays said:


> Here's the Phillips story in case anyone wants to read it
> 
> Trevor Phillips suspended from Labour over Islamophobia allegations


Not sure if this is the thread for this, but I heard Philips interviewed on R4 this am and he appeared oddly ill-informed about the UK context for racist and religious hate crimes. He pretty solidly attempted to hide behind the old far-right trope that he couldn't have been racist because Muslims are not a race.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Do you not think people are less racist in London than the rest of England.



No. Why do you think people in london are less racist?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I haven’t seen it. I don’t watch foreign language films as much anymore.



You should watch it. I think you'll find it enlightening


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> No. Why do you think people in london are less racist?



I see the results not the reasons.

As a guess, I’d say more mixing between people.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You should watch it. I think you'll find it enlightening



I’m fine. Thank you.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Not sure if this is the thread for this, but I heard Philips interviewed on R4 this am and he appeared oddly ill-informed about the UK context for racist and religious hate crimes. He pretty solidly attempted to hide behind the old far-right trope that he couldn't have been racist because Muslims are not a race.



Agree that this shouldn't be on this thread, but I am struggling to see how Philips statement is a 'far right trope'. It's unfortunatethat you've made it look like he said 'Muslims are not a race' rather than the full context of what he actually said - which is his two heroes - Ali and Malcolm X -  were proof that Islam is a pan racial religion.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I’m fine.



That's debatable


----------



## andysays (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I haven’t seen it. I don’t watch foreign language films as much anymore.


Racist!!1!


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agree that this shouldn't be on this thread, but I am struggling to see how Philips statement is a 'far right trope'. It's unfortunatethat you've made it look like he said 'Muslims are not a race' rather than the full context of what he actually said - which is his two heroes - Ali and Malcolm X -  were proof that Islam is a pan racial religion.


Yeah, apols about shatting on this thread....but....must just say that (without going back to re-listen) I'm pretty sure that he did say just that; _Muslims are not a race. _Hence he couldn't have been racist/islamaphobic. Sounds like lame far-right excusing to me.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I see the results not the reasons.
> 
> As a guess, I’d say more mixing between people.



Fucking hell. 

In what basis do you conclude people from london are less racist than people not from london?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fucking hell.
> 
> In what basis do you conclude people from london are less racist than people not from london?



Speaking to people. Why don’t you try it since you don’t believe its true. Loads of people just voted to leave the EU to get rid of the foreigns and voted Tory to make sure it happens.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

Btw the first place in UK to elect a BNP councillor was in london. The first place to have a BNP member on its regional/national assembly, also london. Is london more racist than rest of UK, probably no. Is it less racist, also probably no


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Speaking to people. Why don’t you try it since you don’t believe its true. Loads of people just voted to leave the EU to get rid of the foreigns and voted Tory to make sure it happens.



Bit circular this. 

I said you had come to conclusion that london was less racist because it voted remain. 

You said no its more than that. 

We've then fannied about for half a dozen posts while you pretend to be a builder before you've eventually confirmed that you have come to conclusion that london is less racist because it voted remain.

Dickhead.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Btw the first place in UK to elect a BNP councillor was on london. The first place to have a BNP member in its regional/national assembly, also london. Is london more racist than rest of UK, probably no. Is it less racist, also probably no



Was it in a working class area?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Bit circular this.
> 
> I said you had come to conclusion that london was less racist because it voted remain.
> 
> ...



I never pretended to be a builder 😂


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Was it in a working class area?



Barnbrook was elected on the list. So no.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Barnbrook was elected on the list. So no.



Must have been all the middle class in London voting BNP then.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, apols about shatting on this thread....but....must just say that (without going back to re-listen) I'm pretty sure that he did say just that; _Muslims are not a race. _Hence he couldn't have been racist/islamaphobic. Sounds like lame far-right excusing to me.



The actual quote is on the link you shared. 

The timing of this is _abysmal. _

The politics that have led to his suspension - and I say this as someone who doesn't like Philips Blairite politics or niche career as a 'commentator' - are _rancid. _


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Speaking to people. Why don’t you try it since you don’t believe its true. Loads of people just voted to leave the EU to get rid of the foreigns and voted Tory to make sure it happens.



You remind me of a young George Orwell. 

A bright man like yourself, out there, talking to the common man. Then forming your opinions based on that. We are lucky that you share the insights you've gained with us.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You remind me of a young George Orwell.
> 
> A bright man like yourself, out there, talking to the common man. Then forming your opinions based on that. We are lucky that you share the insights you've gained with us.



I should of course believe that everyone in England is just desperate to vote for left wing policies but keep slipping and voting Tory by accident.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Must have been all the middle class in London voting BNP then.



And there we have it


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Agree that this shouldn't be on this thread, but I am struggling to see how Philips statement is a 'far right trope'. It's unfortunatethat you've made it look like he said 'Muslims are not a race' rather than the full context of what he actually said - which is his two heroes - Ali and Malcolm X -  were proof that Islam is a pan racial religion.



Interesting then that the concern is that he has problems with Muslims of a certain background, which would negate his ‘it’s not about race’ excuse. 

The concern is generalising in a way he wouldn’t about other races and criminality. Let’s judge it on the evidence.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I should of course believe that everyone in England is just desperate to vote for left wing policies but keep slipping and voting Tory by accident.



Look seriously, go and read some books. Go and think about how politics, culture and hegemony is _produced. _

Read about the development of the English working class - start with EP Thompson and go from there. 

Think as well about where your politics - the working class are shit racists and Tories - ends.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The actual quote is on the link you shared.
> 
> The timing of this is _abysmal. _
> 
> The politics that have led to his suspension - and I say this as someone who doesn't like Philips Blairite politics or niche career as a 'commentator' - are _rancid. _


Link was from andysays , but yeah...that's what Philips said.
Accused of islamophobia he says he can't have been because the (APPG) definition adopted by the LP says that _Islamophobia is rooted in racism _and as the people he's been bad-mouthing in 'The Times' aren't a race, he can't be guilty.
Came across a a colossal cunt.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Look seriously, go and read some books. Go and think about how politics, culture and hegemony is _produced. _
> 
> Read about the development of the English working class - start with EP Thompson and go from there.
> 
> Think as well about where your politics - the working class are shit racists and Tories - ends.



Maybe read a few less books and understand that the working class prefer to vote for Thatcher, Blair, and Johnson than anyone you approve of.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Interesting then that the concern is that he has problems with Muslims of a certain background, which would negate his ‘it’s not about race’ excuse.
> 
> The concern is generalising in a way he wouldn’t about other races and criminality. Let’s judge it on the evidence.



I've only read the link to the story posted by Brogdale. What has he said about races and criminality?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Link was from andysays , but yeah...that's what Philips said.
> Accused of islamophobia he says he can't have been because the (APPG) definition adopted by the LP says that _Islamophobia is rooted in racism _and as the people he's been bad-mouthing in 'The Times' aren't a race, he can't be guilty.
> Came across a a colossal cunt.



Right. So can someone post his comments from The Times then??


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Maybe read a few less books and understand that the working class prefer to vote for Thatcher, Blair, and Johnson than anyone you approve of.



What the fuck is this shit?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Right. So can someone post his comments from The Times then??


Can only paraphrase, but the two points raised on R4 were his piece under the headline of "_Muslims are not like us" _and his published (?) comment that _Britain's Muslims are becoming a nation within a nation._


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Can only paraphrase, but the two points raised on R4 were his piece under the headline of "_Muslims are not like us" _and his published (?) comment that _Britain's Muslims are becoming a nation within a nation._



Hmmm. It would be useful to know what the alleged comments that led to his suspension actually are - so far all we seem to have are print and media interviews from him reacting to the suspension. I am sure they'll be leaked shortly and I'm sure the BBC are commissioning him to make a film about it as we speak.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 9, 2020)

There’s this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lity-chief-trevor-phillips-says-a6836301.html


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Right. So can someone post his comments from The Times then??








> Trevor Phillips, the former head of Britain’s equalities watchdog, has been suspended from the Labour Party over allegations of Islamophobia, _The Times _can disclose.
> 
> A pioneering anti-racism campaigner, Mr Phillips, 66, now faces expulsion from the party for alleged prejudice against Muslims. He first alerted Britain to the problem of Islamophobia in the 1990s but is now being investigated for public statements that include expressing concerns about Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children in northern towns such as Rotherham.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Hmmm. It would be useful to know what the alleged comments that led to his suspension actually are - so far all we seem to have are print and media interviews from him reacting to the suspension. I am sure they'll be leaked shortly and I'm sure the BBC are commissioning him to make a film about it as we speak.


Based upon what he said in today's interview, I'd say that it seems like the LP's suspension of his membership is an appropriate response.
Can't say that I disagree with Warsi, tbh


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

This will not end well


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Twat face's 2pworth...


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 9, 2020)

Could be fun to watch though


----------



## JimW (Mar 9, 2020)

Rules Phillips out as leader though, unless the series ends with a really big twist.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Twat face's 2pworth...
> 
> View attachment 201084



Reactionary rightwing nationalist cunt. Amazes me that anybody takes this propagandist hack seriously.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Does this story need a new thread, or do we already have an appropriate islamophobia one?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> This will not end well



A masterful understatement. Bound to now be part of the leadership election. Mind you, it’s been going on so long people have stopped paying any attention to it


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> Most working class people especially those living outside London are racist and therefore voted leave. I don’t care about this. Its just the way it is. Its all the lefties that feel the need to deny it.



I live in the Northeast, voted leave, my two children are mixed race and I enjoy working side by side a team of drivers from every race and religion you can think of - where do I fit into your racist paradigm?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I live in the Northeast, voted leave, my two children are mixed race and I enjoy working side by side a team of drivers from every race and religion you can think of - where do I fit into your racist paradigm?


how many thelemites do you work alongside? i doubt there are many yakuts in your team, and equally few yazidis

but working alongside people is no real defence against accusations of racism, nor is having mixed race children. a great number of men are married, doesn't innoculate them against misogyny.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> A masterful understatement. Bound to now be part of the leadership election. Mind you, it’s been going on so long people have stopped paying any attention to it


Yeah, I'm sure that the candidates will be asked about this case, but in the broader picture it doesn't have the potency of AS; if anything it does show them taking some action and has the potential to (re)shine a light on tory islamophobia.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Crick tweets that Starmer is Philip's MP.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, I'm sure that the candidates will be asked about this case, but in the broader picture it doesn't have the potency of AS; if anything it does show them taking some action and has the potential to (re)shine a light on tory islamophobia.



Labour won’t do well out of this. If anything it will simply refocus the press on the lack of equivalent action about antisemitism. 

But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong thing to do. If you took many of Phillip’s quoted comments and substituted ‘Black’ or ‘Jewish’ they would be offensive. So let the charges be heard.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Labour won’t do well out of this. If anything it will simply refocus the press on the lack of equivalent action about antisemitism.
> 
> But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong thing to do. If you took many of Phillip’s quoted comments and substituted ‘Black’ or ‘Jewish’ they would be offensive. So let the charges be heard.


Was quite surprised to learn that Philips was a member of the LP, tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Was quite surprised to learn that Philips was a member of the LP, tbh.


i thought he'd died some years back so was very surprised to hear of this


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought he'd died some years back so was very surprised to hear of this



Did you think he died alone, a long, long time ago?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Did you think he died alone, a long, long time ago?


while eating a galaxy far far away


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I live in the Northeast, voted leave, my two children are mixed race and I enjoy working side by side a team of drivers from every race and religion you can think of - where do I fit into your racist paradigm?



You are the biggest of racists. I can’t be as racist as you. My best friend is black.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Plymouth?


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> You are the biggest of racists. I can’t be as racist as you. My best friend is black.



What a lost soul you are.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> What a lost soul you are.



I’m a lost soul? You used your children as a shield for your own racism. That’s low.

You really believe racists don’t have sex with someone of a different skin colour to them?


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> I’m a lost soul? You used your children as a shield for your own racism. That’s low.
> 
> You really believe racists don’t have sex with someone of a different skin colour to them?



So by your reasoning people who voted leave are all racists, more so if they live outside of London?

What about say, mixed race, black people etc who voted leave - also racists, yes?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> So by your reasoning people who voted leave are all racists, more so if they live outside of London?
> 
> What about say, mixed race, black people etc who voted leave - also racists, yes?



If a black person hates Asian people, white people, people they don’t think have the right to live in the country. They are a racist.

You are a racist because a couple of pints in you’d be talking about how there are too many foreigns, they are taking your jobs, or they are all on benefits, Or they don’t want to integrate like your mate Keith in the bookies.

Just own it. You are full of hate and the main benefit of brexit for you will be that less foreigners will be allowed in the country. Have some courage.

You voted brexit to reduce immigration?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 9, 2020)

(Puts thread on ignore)


----------



## Marty1 (Mar 9, 2020)

B.I.G said:


> If a black person hates Asian people, white people, people they don’t think have the right to live in the country. They are a racist.
> 
> You are a racist because a couple of pints in you’d be talking about how there are too many foreigns, they are taking your jobs, or they are all on benefits, Or they don’t want to integrate like your mate Keith in the bookies.
> 
> ...



Your stereotype of working class northerners conversations over a pint reveal your own bigotry- if anything you sound like an incel who’s been radicalised, a prime candidate to be recruited for a hate mob like antifa or neo-nazi’s etc.

With regards to immigration - I certainly think an Aussie style points system is more than sensible.

As for your precious EU:









						Detention, torture and killing … how the EU outsourced migration policy | Kenan Malik
					

Only a morally warped ideology can justify opening fire at those fleeing for their lives




					www.theguardian.com
				




Oh dear.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> a hate mob like antifa or neo-nazi’s etc.


That should be enough, surely?


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Your stereotype of working class northerners conversations over a pint reveal your own bigotry- if anything you sound like an incel who’s been radicalised, a prime candidate to be recruited for a hate mob like antifa or neo-nazi’s etc.
> 
> With regards to immigration - I certainly think an Aussie style points system is more than sensible.
> 
> ...



Trapped you at last 😀


----------



## editor (Mar 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Your stereotype of working class northerners conversations over a pint reveal your own bigotry- if anything you sound like an incel who’s been radicalised, a prime candidate to be recruited for a hate mob like antifa or neo-nazi’s etc.
> 
> With regards to immigration - I certainly think an Aussie style points system is more than sensible.
> 
> ...


And on that offensive note off this thread you fuck, with a warning in your belt.,


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 9, 2020)

I met Sir Waitrose!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I met Sir Waitrose!



Did he shake your hand or swerve it due to coronafear


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Did he shake your hand or swerve it due to coronafear


He put his arm round me for a photo. Lovely, strong arm, used to carrying Waitrose baskets.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 9, 2020)

ern


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He put his arm round me for a photo. Lovely, strong arm, used to carrying Waitrose baskets.



Did you tell him about his growing fan club on U75?


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I met Sir Waitrose!



Did you have a decaff soya latte together?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 9, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Did you have a decaff soya latte together?


He was drinking an IPA actually. Lad!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was drinking an IPA actually. Lad!



Do you remember which one?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was drinking an IPA actually. Lad!




Greene King IPA?? 

</looks at this possibility dubiously   >


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Greene King IPA??
> 
> </looks at this possibility dubiously   >



I reckon either greene king or something quite cool dad like beavertown


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Do you remember which one?


Waitrose own brand.

nah, I didn’t really pay attention.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

If it wasn't lidl 99p 'twisted knots' american ipa then he's a tory


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 9, 2020)




----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 9, 2020)

To be fair, that looks like it would be worth a test!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> View attachment 201161



Nah it says british and sovereign on it


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nah it says british and sovereign on it


🙄


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was drinking an IPA actually. Lad!



Centrist dad more like.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> He was drinking an IPA actually.



Hipster cunt


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> View attachment 201161



I bet he would and all.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 9, 2020)

Excuse my ignorance but why do people call him Sir Waitrose?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 10, 2020)

Serge Forward said:


> Excuse my ignorance but why do people call him Sir Waitrose?


Because they’re... horrible

(presumably because they think he’s a middle-class Lib Dem posho?)


----------



## Raheem (Mar 10, 2020)

I never go to Waitrose, not out of principle, but because I don't live near one. But I recently went to two different Waitroses on the same day, after a gap of probably about 20 years.

Really disappointing. Expectations of perusing cheeses made out of yak's milk by nuns on far-flung tropical islands. But it's basically a supermarket where everything is more expensive by 10p.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 10, 2020)

Raheem said:


> I never go to Waitrose, not out of principle, but because I don't live near one. But I recently went to two different Waitroses on the same day, after a gap of probably about 20 years.
> 
> Really disappointing. Expectations of perusing cheeses made out of yak's milk by nuns on far-flung tropical islands. But it's basically a supermarket where everything is more expensive by 10p.



They sell that jacksons bread though, the white sliced, incredible loaf


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> To be fair, that looks like it would be worth a test!



They do an own brand ruby ale that's very good, I have to say.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2020)

Raheem said:


> I never go to Waitrose, not out of principle, but because I don't live near one. But I recently went to two different Waitroses on the same day, after a gap of probably about 20 years.
> 
> Really disappointing. Expectations of perusing cheeses made out of yak's milk by nuns on far-flung tropical islands. But it's basically a supermarket where everything is more expensive by 10p.



Odd and posho as John Lewis is, still the UK’s biggest staff owned business. A shame that the staff profit share plummeted this year as Jeff Bezos earnings grew to $2500 per second. 

Ok not for all the workers for sure, but better for some.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 10, 2020)

Free coffee.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Free coffee.



No, Coffee, liberate yourself!


----------



## brogdale (Mar 10, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> No, Coffee, liberate yourself!


Get a free coffee whenever I can, (I tend to carry last year's 1/2 pint heavy duty plastic festie beer 'glass' with me), and always smile sweetly at the staff that get posted near the machines to 'check' you've made a purchase. Obvs I haven't...but they don't hassle much, apart from the one younger woman at the Croydon branch who sometimes sucks her teeth to show me that she knows!


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 10, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Get a free coffee whenever I can, (I tend to carry last year's 1/2 pint heavy duty plastic bestie beer 'glass' with me), and always smile sweetly at the staff that get posted near the machines to 'check' you've made a purchase. Obvs I haven't...but they don't hassle much, apart from the one younger woman at the Croydon branch who sometimes sucks her teeth to show me that she knows!



It’s like Abbie Hoffman is still with us.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 11, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> Odd and posho as John Lewis is, still the UK’s biggest staff owned business. A shame that the staff profit share plummeted this year as Jeff Bezos earnings grew to $2500 per second.
> 
> Ok not for all the workers for sure, but better for some.


I don't really know much about it, but I accept that some of all those extra 10p's might be paying for better conditions for the people who work there. But I don't know anyone who works in one for the same reason I never go to one. 

It's just that I had imagined Waitrose would be a place where you can get all sorts of exotic and exciting stuff that the riff-raff are excluded from. Really surprising to find out that there are lots of people willing to shop somewhere that's more expensive simply because it is more expensive. A sort of snobbery supplement. 

(Before anyone says it, I'm sure there are people who shop there because it's the only supermarket where they live, and for various possibly valid reasons I haven't thought of).


----------



## two sheds (Mar 11, 2020)

Raheem said:


> I don't really know much about it, but I accept that some of all those extra 10p's might be paying for better conditions for the people who work there. But I don't know anyone who works in one for the same reason I never go to one.
> 
> It's just that I had imagined Waitrose would be a place where you can get all sorts of exotic and exciting stuff that the riff-raff are excluded from. Really surprising to find out that there are lots of people willing to shop somewhere that's more expensive simply because it is more expensive. A sort of snobbery supplement.
> 
> (Before anyone says it, I'm sure there are people who shop there because it's the only supermarket where they live, and for various possibly valid reasons I haven't thought of).



Have shopped online. Only alternatives I know of are Tesco's (hate their business model) and not too keen on Sainsburys either. Aldi deliver alcohol only as far as I can see (tempting though). Part of John Lewis makes me keener. So don't mind paying a bit more to avoid Tesco.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2020)

The staples are the same as all the other supermarkets (+10p), but Waitrose do have a load of stuff you can't get at the other ones.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 11, 2020)

Anyway back to the substance of the thread. Sir chin wears joules


----------



## kebabking (Mar 11, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Anyway back to the substance of the thread. Sir chin wears joules



He's not very posh then - joules is not just tat, it screams 'try hard'.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 11, 2020)

kebabking said:


> He's not very posh then - joules is not just tat, it screams 'try hard'.



Its very middle class in that way though isn't it. A premium for shit and signifier over substance.

Crew clothing too I reckon.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 17, 2020)

I presume the leadership election will be put on hold?


----------



## killer b (Mar 17, 2020)

Not heard anything to suggest it will be yet, but it seems likely.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2020)

ska invita said:


> I presume the leadership election will be put on hold?


Cometh the hour...he's already there?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 17, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Cometh the hour...he's already there?



One of the parody twitter accounts has already done that....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> Not heard anything to suggest it will be yet, but it seems likely.



I think that is massively problematic. Leaving aside the fact that the whole process has already gone on far too long the idea that the pandemic will be gone in weeks and things will get back to 'normal' is not realistic. Like all leaders who announce their departure Corbyn is a lame duck - a disaster given when Labour needs to be holding the government to account


----------



## killer b (Mar 17, 2020)

I think pushing ahead with a non-essential election at the actual moment of national/international crisis would be more 'problematic' tbh.


----------



## campanula (Mar 17, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think pushing ahead with a non-essential election at the actual moment of national/international crisis would be more 'problematic' tbh.


  Exactly so. At a time when unity and solidarity are needed more than ever, continuing the Labour internal jostling is unedifying to say the least. What is the phrase...summat about optics? Well holding an election to elect a leader (who has no executive power whatsoever) looks more like witless posturing rather than any sort of constructive response to a crisis.


----------



## killer b (Mar 17, 2020)

Fwiw while it's a bit lost in the noise, Corbyn has been pretty on point recently anyway. Difficult to imagine any of his replacements making themselves heard any better.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 17, 2020)

campanula said:


> Exactly so. At a time when unity and solidarity are needed more than ever, continuing the Labour internal jostling is unedifying to say the least. What is the phrase...summat about optics? Well holding an election to elect a leader (who has no executive power whatsoever) looks more like witless posturing rather than any sort of constructive response to a crisis.



The idea that the candidates are going to stop jostling is pretty naive I'd suggest. 

I'm past caring what Labour do or don't do to be honest, but there are obvious dangers with allowing the Tories free reign against a lame duck Labour leader.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The idea that the candidates are going to stop jostling is pretty naive I'd suggest.
> 
> I'm past caring what Labour do or don't do to be honest, but there are obvious dangers with allowing the Tories free reign against a lame duck Labour leader.


If the LP have any eye on public concerns/opinion they'd be wise to suspend the process, pending an later announcement and let Corbyn do what he does best; sound and seem more reasonable, considered and empathetic than Johnson.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 17, 2020)

Say what you like about corbyn, he's got staying power. Might stick a tenner on a corbyn v javid GE in 2021


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 17, 2020)

brogdale said:


> If the LP have any eye on public concerns/opinion they'd be wise to suspend the process, pending an later announcement and let Corbyn do what he does best; sound and seem more reasonable, considered and empathetic than Johnson.



The idea that the public hearing more from Corbyn helps labour is an interesting one. That said the efforts of Waitrose, Nandy and RLB aren’t any better.

I just think that the idea of Corbyn remaining in charge for 6-12 months after losing an election, and then Labour restarting a process most members and affiliate members have already voted in is a shit one


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 17, 2020)

Rather corbyn than posh chin


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The idea that the public hearing more from Corbyn helps labour is an interesting one. That said the efforts of Waitrose, Nandy and RLB aren’t any better.
> 
> I just think that the idea of Corbyn remaining in charge for 6-12 months after losing an election, and then Labour restarting a process most members and affiliate members have already voted in is a shit one


Yeah, i know what you mean...but I'm assuming that they could leave the (largely?) electronic ballot open till April 2nd, then just 'bank' the result for later...when  it seems a bit more appropriate to dwell on party political matters. In a few weeks things could be properly fucking bleak tbh; the last thing anyone will be interested in is the LP's leadership.

I'm not really saying that anyone necessarily wants to hear more from Corbyn, but undeniably he has the ability to conduct himself properly and effectively through this period.

Who knows what they'll do, though?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Rather corbyn than posh chin


Essentially yes, and JC is undeniably good on the 'arm around shoulder'* stuff.

*obviously not literally, now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 17, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, i know what you mean...but I'm assuming that they could leave the (largely?) electronic ballot open till April 2nd, then just 'bank' the result for later...when  it seems a bit more appropriate to dwell on party political matters. In a few weeks things could be properly fucking bleak tbh; the last thing anyone will be interested in is the LP's leadership.
> 
> I'm not really saying that anyone necessarily wants to hear more from Corbyn, but undeniably he has the ability to conduct himself properly and effectively through this period.
> 
> Who knows what they'll do, though?



Thing is, if they essentially freeze as is, when probably the new leader has already been determined from completed ballots, then just announce when things calmer we could be in a quite different situation which would have resulted in a different outcome.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, if they essentially freeze as is, when probably the new leader has already been determined from completed ballots, then just announce when things calmer we could be in a quite different situation which would have resulted in a different outcome.


Good point; no easy outcomes at present.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 17, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, if they essentially freeze as is, when probably the new leader has already been determined from completed ballots, then just announce when things calmer we could be in a quite different situation which would have resulted in a different outcome.



If they freeze it then the question ‘why’ needs to be answered. If they rerun it (which would be the only logical decision - presumably to allow those who can’t send an email/post a ballot due to the Coronavirus to vote) then I’d imagine legal challenges would ensue from Starmer


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If they freeze it then the question ‘why’ needs to be answered. If they rerun it (which would be the only logical decision - presumably to allow those who can’t send an email/post a ballot due to the Coronavirus to vote) then I’d imagine legal challenges would ensue from Starmer



True. Mind you couldn't end well for him that could it. Be interesting to see how this pans out


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> If they freeze it then the question ‘why’ needs to be answered. If they rerun it (which would be the only logical decision - presumably to allow those who can’t send an email/post a ballot due to the Coronavirus to vote) then I’d imagine legal challenges would ensue from Starmer


I can see a 'third way'   in which they freeze the ballot on the published day (April 2nd) then hold with JC holding on until calmer, more appropriate times...then give a fortnight re-opening for anyone unable to vote in the last/current 3 weeks of the ballot. Then anoint Starmer...giving him a 'clean skin' start that's untainted by any collaboration with Johnson's handling of the CoronaShitshow and a free rein to exploit the situation for party political gain.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 17, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I can see a 'third way'   in which they freeze the ballot on the published day (April 2nd) then hold with JC holding on until calmer, more appropriate times...then give a fortnight re-opening for anyone unable to vote in the last/current 3 weeks of the ballot. Then anoint Starmer...giving him a 'clean skin' start that's untainted by any collaboration with Johnson's handling of the CoronaShitshow and a free rein to exploit the situation for party political gain.



Let’s say they do that. When does ‘calmer, more appropriate times’ begin? Two months? 6? 12?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2020)

Sounds a bit like they might be trying to rush things forward instead of putting it back


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 27, 2020)

killer b said:


> I think pushing ahead with a non-essential election at the actual moment of national/international crisis would be more 'problematic' tbh.


If the Labour leadership election only began a couple of weeks ago I would totally agree. But given it’s been going on for 3 months, 95% of it is done, and there’s only a week left until the winner is announced I don’t think postponing it indefinitely would achieve anything.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2020)

And given that your chosen leader is the nailed on winner, don't forget.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 27, 2020)

As he would be in 6 months (or whenever)


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 27, 2020)

killer b said:


> And given that your chosen leader is the nailed on winner, don't forget.


That’s irrelevant to the point though. If RLB was favourite to win I still don’t see any benefit in postponing at this stage.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2020)

lol right.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 27, 2020)

JOHNSON HAS CORONAVIRUS


----------



## strung out (Mar 27, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> JOHNSON HAS CORONAVIRUS


Just in time for Starmer to sweep in and stage a coup, and bring in full communism now.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 27, 2020)

strung out said:


> Just in time for Starmer to sweep in and stage a coup, and bring in full communism now.



Bring your own Waitrose bags (according to ability). Free coffee (according to need).


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 27, 2020)

Surprised Nandy isn’t going to town on this tbh 





fakeplasticgirl said:


> JOHNSON HAS CORONAVIRUS


----------



## kebabking (Mar 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Surprised Nandy isn’t going to town on this tbh



To what end?

'Johnson has C-19, the Tories are on 50%+, we're in the middle of a pandemic - let's have an election'?

You are Seamus Milne, and I claim my £5....


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 27, 2020)

I’m not sure my post went over your head or yours went over mine there


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2020)

Not sure how clued in this guy is, but....



Be interested to hear what Starmer’s fanclub- Mason in particular- have to say about Rachel Reeves being Shadow Chancellor in their new radical left leadership....


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 29, 2020)

postponing the leadership election will be spun by the tories and their very rich friends who own the media along the lines of corbyn - stalinist coup - clinging to power - anti democratic.  

if they go ahead it will be spun as the wrong thing to have done in the circumstances...


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 29, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Not sure how clued in this guy is, but....
> 
> 
> 
> Be interested to hear what Starmer’s fanclub- Mason in particular- have to say about Rachel Reeves being Shadow Chancellor in their new radical left leadership....




‘Allegedly’and ‘in the running’ are two big caveats, but hell no, she’d be effing awful.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2020)

Mr Moose said:


> ‘Allegedly’and ‘in the running’ are two big caveats, but hell no, she’d be effing awful.



Agreed. It could be shite, I can’t read the article because it’s behind the Times paywall.

I guess we’ll find out in a week or so


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2020)

Dear ----

*RE: Implications of the Coronavirus Act for disabled people*

Thank you for getting in touch on this crucial matter.

This is an unprecedented crisis; what began as a public health emergency has escalated into an social and economic crisis with broad implications for our community. There was a clear need for the Coronavirus Act in order to facilitate extraordinary measures to help the UK recruit the additional NHS workers we need; place vital social distancing measures on a legal footing; and ensure food supplies are maintained.

However, I was deeply concerned by the provisions which enable local authorities to prioritise the services they offer and delay the assessment of eligibility for NHS continuing care. The justification for these measures were to ensure that the most urgent and serious care needs are met, but in reality, this means local authorities may ration care, and could choose to stop meeting people’s needs in full.

Clearly, for disabled people this is of profound concern. Along with my Labour colleagues, we tabled amendments designed to address this and ensure local authorities continued to meet their responsibilities under the Care Act where it was feasible for them to do so, as well as to ensure local authorities continued to meet the care needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. 

I agree wholeheartedly with you that rather than rationing the needs of disabled people, we should have provided the social care service with whatever it took to maintain appropriate care for disabled people and vulnerable adults in the difficult weeks and months ahead. The commitment to the NHS was needed for social care too.

While I regret that our attempts to strengthen the safeguards for the most vulnerable did not lead to a change of approach from the Government, I want you to be reassured that locally I will do everything I can to ensure that Sheffield City Council maintains its commitment to the disabled and vulnerable adults throughout this crisis. I am clear that where care is needed, it should be met. I understand these are difficult times and you will be concerned about whether the nature of care may change. Therefore, please do alert me to any changes as soon as possible, and I will do everything I can to help.

More broadly, I have been fighting to ensure our social care system can respond to this crisis. That means proper emergency funding to enable our local authority to provide the care they need, but it also means support for the social care workforce. This includes proper protective equipment for all care staff to ensure that they stay safe and, crucially, that they do not act as vectors of the virus to the most vulnerable. It also means Statutory Sick Pay must be increased to a level people can live on, so that care workers do not have to face the impossible choice between looking after their health or facing hardship. Nobody should face that choice, and I will continue to press the Chancellor to act.

In these testing times, I want to reassure you that I will always look out for, and advocate on behalf of the most vulnerable. Please do get in touch if you have any questions or issues you want to raise.

Best wishes,
Louise

*Louise Haigh MP
Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Heeley*



I wish Louise Haigh had stood for one of the positions, she isn't even my MP and yet she replied in detail to my urgent question on the impact of the emergency laws

btw, my M.P hasn't even replied yet.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2020)

Looks like she actually read your letter and responded to individual points, too  - the last letters I've had from MPs have just been form letters they sent out in mass.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2020)

Cheers treelover


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 3, 2020)

Just making some early preparations for tomorrow....


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 3, 2020)

I may have missed this, but have we got a time for the announcement tomorrow?


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2020)

10.45 am


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 3, 2020)

Come on then. Let’s have some predictions.

I assume we all think Waitrose & Angela Rayner are going to win. But by what margin and who finishes in what order behind them....


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 3, 2020)

Leader 

Waitrose (by loads)
RLBonkers
Nandy

Deputy 

Rayner 
Burgon
Er, Alinn Khan maybe?


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2020)

KS 55-60%  (wins first round)
RLB 30-35%
LN - 10-15%

AR - 55% (wins first round)
RB - 15%
DB - 14%
RAK - 10%
Im 5%


----------



## oryx (Apr 3, 2020)

My prediction is that Starmer will win, but not by as great a margin as expected. 

Ditto Angela Rayner for the deputy leadership. I'll be pleased for Rayner if she wins it - she seems sound.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 3, 2020)

Both Starmer and Rayner to win in first round.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 3, 2020)

I’m predicting:

Waitrose
RLB
Nandy

(Starmer wins on the second round)

Rayner
Butler
Burgon
RAK
IM

(Rayner wins on second round)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 3, 2020)

At least posh chin can't have a celebratory bash. Theyll probably have some zoom silent disco or something twee and middle class wanky. All dress up as yellow stars to make a massive eu flag out of wankers or something. Libdem cunts


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 3, 2020)

Any more news/rumours on his LOTO team and shadow cabinet?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 3, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Any more news/rumours on his LOTO team and shadow cabinet?



Richard Osman for shadow culture


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 3, 2020)

Terry Christian might get it mind


----------



## Labourite (Apr 3, 2020)

I think it's going to be Starmer. The whole leadership race has been rightly overshadowed by the coronavirus however.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)

Is there anywhere this is being broadcast live?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2020)

Starmer 61% = my punt.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Is there anywhere this is being broadcast live?



silly question, COVID means there will be no public event


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 4, 2020)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Is there anywhere this is being broadcast live?



They are sending out an email, apparently


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2020)




----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 4, 2020)

Starmer, not surprisingly.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 4, 2020)

And Rayner.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 4, 2020)

2020 just got worse, Jesus fucking wept.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2020)

Don't demand the impossible.
Great start.


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

It's... _interesting_ that out of this morning's Financial Times editorial and the new Labour leader's victory speech, the Financial Times editorial is by some distance the more radical.


----------



## lazythursday (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's... _interesting_ that out of this morning's Financial Times editorial and the new Labour leader's victory speech, the Financial Times editorial is by some distance the more radical.


I was just thinking that. "We must go forward with a vision of a better society" ffs


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's... _interesting_ that out of this morning's Financial Times editorial and the new Labour leader's victory speech, the Financial Times editorial is by some distance the more radical.



In what way is the FT leader radical? In its ambition to bail out capital? What else would you have capital do, but adopt the measures it had to in the 1920’s and the 1950’s?


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In what way is the FT leader radical? In its ambition to bail out capital? What else would you have capital do, but adopt the measures it had to in the 1920’s and the 1950’s?


It's radical when compared with this nothing victory statement from the new leader of the Labour Party, like I said in the post.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> It's radical when compared with this nothing victory statement from the new leader of the Labour Party, like I said in the post.



It isn’t. Both have set out their initial plans to provide breathing space for capitalism. Both have indicated that they know where we need to go next - a new social contract, a corporate bailout and state capitalism until captains of industry can be more bold. 

The NHS and others can expect better pay. The worst excesses of the market will be reigned in and the purpose of government can be captured in two words - ‘buy time’. Scraps from the table will need to more substantial for a while. Even inequality may need to be reduced for a period.

Starmer is the leader that capital needs. He is the leader the FT leader recognises is needed. I fully expect national government to be on the agenda now.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2020)

The leading paper of capital supports continuing capitalism??!!  Blimey, what an insight.


----------



## lazythursday (Apr 4, 2020)

That FT leader is positive about UBI and calls for a whole new social contract. Starmer... well there's not really anything in that speech at all, just slippery feelgood stuff. Like a holding statement while he figures out what the fuck he believes in right now.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 4, 2020)

Amazingly Long-Bailey managed to come last in the trade union section:

Long-Bailey also came third among affiliates (union members and others) too. She got just 22% to Nandy's 24.5% and Starmer's 53%.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2020)

Starmer's not stupid, is he?


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I fully expect national government to be on the agenda now.


Can't really be arsed arguing with the rest of it, but this does look like a distinct possibility.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Starmer's not stupid, is he?
> 
> View attachment 204889



'Probably' lol.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> Can't really be arsed arguing with the rest of it, but this does look like a distinct possibility.



Johnson, by amazing coincidence, has written to party leaders _today_ calling for closer partnership working.


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2020)

The right won the two NEC by-elections too. Lauren Townsend about 300 from winning one, Jo Bird 10,000 off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 4, 2020)

if a GNU does happen he'll be fucked long before 2024. Something to look forward to


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Johnson, by amazing coincidence, has written to party leaders _today_ calling for closer partnership working.


yeah, I think viewed alongside this you can see what that signals. 



brogdale said:


> Don't demand the impossible.
> Great start.
> 
> View attachment 204877


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 4, 2020)

just remembered i have a  silly high odds wager on starmer from years ago - 350 quid incoming!


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2020)

Just for those who haven't seen them yet, here are the full figures :




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Sir Keir Starmer - 275,780 votes (56.2%).
> Rebecca Long-Bailey - 135,218 votes (27.6%)
> Lisa Nandy - 79,597 votes (16.2%)
> Just over 490,000 people voted in the contest, out of the 784,151 eligible to take part



This from Labour List is better, has more detail :




			
				Labour List said:
			
		

> *Round 1*
> Keir Starmer – 56.2%
> Rebecca Long-Bailey – 27.6%
> Lisa Nandy – 16.2%
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2020)

Labour deputy leader details,. also from Labour List :




			
				Labour List said:
			
		

> *Round 1:*
> ALLIN-KHAN, Rosena – 77,351 (16.8%)
> BURGON, Richard – 80,053 (17.3%)
> BUTLER, Dawn – 50,255 (10.9%) [ELIMINATED]
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 4, 2020)

Lots of members voting for the leadership didn't bother voting for the deputy, according to Labour List's figures  -- quite a significant difference numerically (???)


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2020)

Only 30,000, not that many overall


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

It was nailed on Rayner, and if you didn't want her who would you even bother voting for anyway? I'm not surprised at all less people voted for deputy.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> yeah, I think viewed alongside this you can see what that signals.


Yes, a small ray of light for Johnson if Starmer agrees to dip his hands in the blood.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 4, 2020)

How is Blairite Starmer going to cope with a Corbynist deputy?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yes, a small ray of light for Johnson if Starmer agrees to dip his hands in the blood.
> 
> View attachment 204906




Dont do it Keirbabes- its a trap


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2020)

Tough on crime.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 4, 2020)

Keir Royale for me today


----------



## Wilf (Apr 4, 2020)

Fuller version of the results here:


			https://labour.org.uk/people/leadership-elections-hub-2020/leadership-elections-2020-results/
		


I'm actually surprised Labour still has 552k individual members.


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

Wilf said:


> I'm actually surprised Labour still has 552k individual members.


me too!


----------



## Wilf (Apr 4, 2020)

In the big picture I, not surprisingly, think Starmer is a dreadful response to the failure of Corbynism. But even within the party political positioning game that he's in, today was a poor start (that's the 20 second clip I've seen). It's obviously a very difficult thing to pitch, supporting the government while opposing them in the time of a national crisis. But there was space there to get right in about a publicly owned NHS, support and higher wages for carers, proper contracts for supermarket workers and others. All that sort of stuff could have been splattered with heroes references and the rest, alongside references to 'working constructively with the government', but marking out some territory. If there was ever a time when public services and community were important...


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 4, 2020)




----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

three lawyers and a PPE grad in the four top jobs. nice.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 4, 2020)

Right now we have an oxbridge classics grad, a PPE grad, a lawyer and... Priti Patel.


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

so?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> so?


Right back atcha


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

my god, is 'the tories are worse' really all you've got?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> my god, is 'the tories are worse' really all you've got?


I only really know anneliese Dodds and she seems excellent. What’s the problem?


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> three lawyers and a PPE grad in the four top jobs. nice.


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2020)

(although fwiw these tip-offs to lobby hacks often turn out to be total bollocks, so lets wait and see)


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> three lawyers and a PPE grad in the four top jobs. nice.



Too fucking many PPE grads in the Commons, too few with real world work experience.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 4, 2020)

Looked up the leader of my New Labour Council in Lambeth (south London) Twitter. Not surprisingly he is so happy with result.



These New Labour Cllrs always opposed Corbyn and all he stood for.  Hopkins wanted Starmer for leader from early on. I expect Chuka is kicking himself now for leaving his safe Labour seat in South London.

For Cllrs like Hopkins they want a return to a new version of New Labour. Corbyn was a break with that kind of centre politics.

It does grate to see Hopkins talk of unity. Given how ruthless New Labour in Lambeth has been.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I expect Chuka is kicking himself now for leaving his safe Labour seat in South London.


Silver lining eh?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 4, 2020)

killer b said:


> three lawyers and a PPE grad in the four top jobs. nice.



This is important.

For too long the Labour Party and too many sections of the ‘movement’ has been dominated by the alumni of student politics who - whether Blairite or Corbynite - saw the party as their plaything. Overwhelmingly middle class in hue, clustered in London and no routes or ability to understand the lived experience of the working class - whether a black cleaner in London or an ex-steelworker in Doncaster.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I expect Chuka is kicking himself now for leaving his safe Labour seat in South London.



Straight out of the blocks...sniffing.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 4, 2020)

I heard starmer was going to knight Chucky and make him shadow chancellor!!!!!!


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 4, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I heard starmer was going to knight Chucky and make him shadow chancellor!!!!!!


Nah, Starmer is many things but he's not stupid, even if he was it's up to Boris not him who gets to risk having their lugs cut off by an old biddy with a sword.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 4, 2020)

This is supposedly a news not a comment piece


> The suite of rooms in Portcullis House allotted to the opposition leader had been vacated by Jeremy Corbyn and his staff – or at least largely vacated – some days before. “It was a bit of a mess to be honest when we got there,” said a source close to Starmer. “There were boxes, clothes, papers everywhere.”
> ....
> But there was a sense that, out of the disasters of coronavirus and its recent election losses, Labour can show again that it is the party of community, of public service, of working people who make the country function.


You can smell the sweaty palms over the computer screen.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 4, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Fuller version of the results here:
> 
> 
> https://labour.org.uk/people/leadership-elections-hub-2020/leadership-elections-2020-results/
> ...



I read somewhere that ut of those eligible to vote 293k didn't bother to vote for a leader candidate, 323k didn't bother to vote for a deputy candidate.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 4, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> I read somewhere that ut of those eligible to vote 293k didn't bother to vote for a leader candidate, 323k didn't bother to vote for a deputy candidate.


That includes all supporters. William of Walworth gave the figures at the bottom of last page/top of this one. Well over 50% of members voted in both contests.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 4, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I heard starmer was going to knight Chucky and make him shadow chancellor!!!!!!



A knighthood doesn't confer any right to sit in Parliament, for a start.


----------



## strung out (Apr 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Nah, Starmer is many things but he's not stupid, even if he was it's up to Boris not him who gets to risk having their lugs cut off by an old biddy with a sword.


All knights can knight people, it was on Game of Thrones.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 4, 2020)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> A knighthood doesn't confer any right to sit in Parliament, for a start.


I was kidding...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 4, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I was kidding...



There should definitely be a font for that. Soz.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 4, 2020)

Would be interests in a venn diagram of labour members who voted starmer and labour voters who have at various points thought the libdems are alright really, might lend them my vote. 

Anyway. The positives are that it's done and now we can unequivocally go back to writing labour off as a bag of shit full of university challenge wankers


----------



## Wilf (Apr 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Would be interests in a venn diagram of labour members who voted starmer and labour voters who have at various points thought the libdems are alright really, might lend them my vote.
> 
> Anyway. The positives are that it's done and now we can unequivocally go back to writing labour off as a bag of shit full of university challenge wankers


Without looking, didn't Corbyn push the individual membership up from about 200k to around 6-700k and then back to the 550k now? If the reality is anything like that, that probably means Starmer may well have got a majority among those who joined after Corbyn became leader.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

Keeley has gone full Starmer-struck. Not really sure why - always saw her as a traditional old labour type.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Without looking, didn't Corbyn push the individual membership up from about 200k to around 6-700k and then back to the 550k now? If the reality is anything like that, that probably means Starmer may well have got a majority among those who joined after Corbyn became leader.



But weren’t a lot of them part of that strange breed - the EuroCorbs? The membership under Corbyn was pro-EU wasn’t it?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Without looking, didn't Corbyn push the individual membership up from about 200k to around 6-700k and then back to the 550k now? If the reality is anything like that, that probably means Starmer may well have got a majority among those who joined after Corbyn became leader.



Tbh a lot of corbynist types, the younger ones anyway, had been libdem soft or voted libdem in 10 then journeyed to (parliamentary) left as a consequence of coalition. 

Like MiB notes, fair whack of EU as identity hyper liberals in corbyn support. I like euro-corbynists, good term


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Keeley has gone full Starmer-struck.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

Barbara Keeley. Was in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. Not really part of his circle, more a party loyalist. Nevertheless always struck me as firmly on the left. She supported starmer in the leadership race and is (it would seem) delighted he won it. Not sure what this means (other than she wants to keep her job - which i hope she does) 

Interestingly she’s a member of LFI. Had labour won last year then THE ZIONISTS would have been in control of social care and mental health policy. Anyway...


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2020)

Ta


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2020)

Buddy asks a good question...and offers a good soubriquet; _Der Starmer

_


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

Gardiner is out (on Gardining leave)


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2020)

& Lavery.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

Night of the butter knives


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

Yeah I had no idea who Jon Trickett was either


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I reckon he’ll go for anneliese Dodds.


Called it!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

Am finally going to vote in this poll. Richard Burgon 2022. Nationalise amphetamine and red stripe.


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2020)

•Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party •Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor •Lisa Nandy, Shadow Foreign Secretary •Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Home Secretary •Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 
•Jonathan Ashworth, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care •Emily Thornberry remains Nick Brown re-appointed Chief Whip and Angela Smith remains Shadow Leader of the Lords. 
The other shadow cabinet appointments will be announced tomorrow.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

Walking on stage at conference to rapturous applause, dead embryonic cells by sepultura blasting out


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2020)

Nandy for Foreign Secretary seems bizarre, not exactly in keeping with everything she campaigned on.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

Rachel Reeves in the shadow cabinet, another future is possible


----------



## tim (Apr 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbh a lot of corbynist types, the younger ones anyway, had been libdem soft or voted libdem in 10 then journeyed to (parliamentary) left as a consequence of coalition.
> 
> Like MiB notes, fair whack of EU as identity hyper liberals in corbyn support. I like euro-corbynists, good term



I prefer _Les Corbusiers._


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

Nice to see a chancellor that understands working people though, will have the common touch I'm sure


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

tim said:


> I prefer _Les Corbusiers._



It’s a broad church.


----------



## tim (Apr 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It’s a broad church.



And mystically illuminated


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2020)

belboid said:


> Nandy for Foreign Secretary seems bizarre, not exactly in keeping with everything she campaigned on.


Keep your enemies closer? Not a position from which she can challenge as easily, either she has to toe the line (comprising her) or she ends up being put into a position where she has to resign.

RLB clearly not going to get anything of substance.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 5, 2020)

On one hand Waitrose has gone up on my estimation. Despite the protestation of ‘balance’ he’s ripped out Corbyn supporters - especially those who supported Leave - and he’s packed the Shadow Cabinet with technocratic drones built in his own image. He’s also added two more NEC votes to his account. Nandy is both promoted and sidelined.

On the other hand who exactly does he imagine this faceless band of technocrats going to appeal to?

Scotland is gone. The Midlands, Wales and North largely gone. I may be wrong but are Rachel Reeves, Annalese Dodds and that Welsh barrister whose name I’ve already forgotten the politicians required to even begin to claw back some of this territory?

Put another way what social base does Starmer think this group of faceless technocrats is meant to energise? Bar that segment of the urban liberal middle class they all come from? And which already vote Labour?

Bizarre stuff


----------



## killer b (Apr 5, 2020)

I'm not sure how much attention most people pay to the shadow cabinet tbf. But yeah, it's wonks as far as the eye can see. They must be glad to get their chair back.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 5, 2020)

Who would have been urban’s choice as shadow chancellor?


----------



## killer b (Apr 5, 2020)

stalin


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Who would have been urban’s choice as shadow chancellor?



Ian Bone.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure how much attention most people pay to the shadow cabinet tbf. But yeah, it's wonks as far as the eye can see. They must be glad to get their chair back.



Who do political wonks, forensics detail junkies, policy bores appeal to anymore?

How is the ‘red wall’ going to rebuilt by a group of Oxbridge PPE’s?

I can’t even work our who Starmer is pitching to here. It’s the political equivalent of the flat earthers. I almost admire the staggering level of stupidity to look at America, Europe, the march of the populists, the comprehensive evisceration of the bland technocratic management of neo-liberalism and the defeat of the end of history peddlers and then _pretend none of it happened _


----------



## killer b (Apr 5, 2020)

You don't appeal to anyone by who's in your cabinet, you appeal to them with policies.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

It's mad isn't it, whole foundation of this type of politics rests on not looking at political trends over last decade, except maybe a one eyed glance at france while ignoring the before, the after, and the two horse race with a fascist. They're fucked.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> You don't appeal to anyone by who's in your cabinet, you appeal to them with policies.



And, in your judgement, what policies are this shadow cabinet team likely to settle upon?


----------



## killer b (Apr 5, 2020)

shit ones.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's mad isn't it, whole foundation of this type of politics rests on not looking at political trends over last decade, except maybe a one eyed glance at france while ignoring the before, the after, and the two horse race with a fascist. They're fucked.



Starmer is clearly off his fucking head.

I’m genuinely excited by this Shadow Cabinet. It’s  barking mad. It’s a flick of the V’s. It’s the footballing equivalent of insisting on playing total football every week even though you are losing every game 10-0. It’s a solo charge into a thousand guns with your bayonet fixed. It’s the last stand....


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> shit ones.



Cant argue with that....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

Look at starmer's (successful) campaign which robbed momentum branding and paid lots of vague lip service and obama like fluff slogans without any tangible substance. I mean tbf it worked, lots of liberal left (as opposed to soft left) types in hook line and sinker, but it's illustrative of the technocratic we know better way labour will be under him and how labour will campaign. Every policy will be underwhelming.


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> And, in your judgement, what policies are this shadow cabinet team likely to settle upon?



Looking Primeministerial in broadsheet photos?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 5, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Who would have been urban’s choice as shadow chancellor?



Stafford Cripps or Francis Jourde.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2020)

Like killer b I think this is less about appealing the to electorate and more about shoring up his power in the party. 

On the wider point while I would certainly agree that populism is challenging liberalism I would not write off liberalism totally. After all Macron did win in France and I'd not be that surprised if he won again in 2022. The CDU and SPD are bleeding votes but it's not unlikely that some sort of liberal coalition (probably including the Greens) will remain in power in Germany. It's too early to say how the effects of COVID-19 are going to play in the US but I always thought that whatever the result of the US presidential election the Democrats would probably win the popular vote. In short while liberalism is being challenged, in fact _because_ it is being challenged, there is a significant electoral body that centrist politics appeals to. 

For Starmer and co that body has to be the basis of their support, it is inconceivable to them for anything else.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

Ever diminishing returns though isn't it. There is a reason why liberalism (although never convinced that's the right term for it) is on the back foot the world over and the right of liberalism (again its an imperfect term) understands this and is adapting. I remain of the view its mad to do a canute in defence of left liberalism and expect results


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

killer b said:


> stalin



I was reading about his welfare policies the other day. All about work capacity. Ironically.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I was reading about his welfare policies the other day. All about work capacity. Ironically.



And extremely grim. Obviously.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ever diminishing returns though isn't it. There is a reason why liberalism (although never convinced that's the right term for it) is on the back foot the world over and the right of liberalism (again its an imperfect term) understands this and is adapting. I remain of the view its mad to do a canute in defence of left liberalism and expect results


Well as I say I'm not sure it is possible for Starmer to do otherwise, taking the old Talleyrand quote "They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing"

Regarding ever diminishing returns, hmmm. I subscribe to the theory that populism is a reaction to liberalism, there have been populists movements that have sprung up and challenged liberalism for a time only to fall back again.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 5, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Well as I say I'm not sure it is possible for Starmer to do otherwise, taking the old Talleyrand quote "They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing"
> 
> Regarding ever diminishing returns, hmmm. I subscribe to the theory that populism is a reaction to liberalism, there have been populists movements that have sprung up and challenged liberalism for a time only to fall back again.



Yeah, but liberalism in response adapts. And plenty of it is adapting. Just apparently not the left liberalism of the labour party.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2020)

Do we reckon they’ll be any good at the opposing/challenging/holding to account aspect of things?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 5, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Like killer b I think this is less about appealing the to electorate and more about shoring up his power in the party.
> 
> On the wider point while I would certainly agree that populism is challenging liberalism I would not write off liberalism totally. After all Macron did win in France and I'd not be that surprised if he won again in 2022. The CDU and SPD are bleeding votes but it's not unlikely that some sort of liberal coalition (probably including the Greens) will remain in power in Germany. It's too early to say how the effects of COVID-19 are going to play in the US but I always thought that whatever the result of the US presidential election the Democrats would probably win the popular vote. In short while liberalism is being challenged, in fact _because_ it is being challenged, there is a significant electoral body that centrist politics appeals to.
> 
> For Starmer and co that body has to be the basis of their support, it is inconceivable to them for anything else.



But the problem is that Labour/other non Tory Party has parties have got that vote boxed off. Labour needs to win in Scotland, Wales and the deindustrialised places of the English north and Midlands. If Starmer believes these areas are hankering for a return to competent middle class liberalism then he’s in for a shock.

I can see the point about the internals given Labour’s endless drama. Other than that I think you are guilty of giving him far too much credit


----------



## agricola (Apr 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> But the problem is that Labour/other non Tory Party has parties have got that vote boxed off. Labour needs to win in Scotland, Wales and the deindustrialised places of the English north and Midlands. If Starmer believes these areas are hankering for a return to competent middle class liberalism then he’s in for a shock.
> 
> I can see the point about the internals given Labour’s endless drama. Other than that I think you are guilty of giving him far too much credit



That is true, but there is a lot that could be done still to get that vote back - it was a scandal that a government with as bad a record as May's (and Johnson's) were able to go on about anyone else being a threat to national security, for example.  Yet that record was never seriously questioned.


----------



## gosub (Apr 5, 2020)

Rebecca Long-Bailey wins the argument
					

There were jubilant scenes on the Corbynite wing of the Labour party after the results of the leadership election appeared to confirm that Rebecca Long-Bailey had won the argument.




					newsthump.com


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 5, 2020)

agricola said:


> That is true, but there is a lot that could be done still to get that vote back - it was a scandal that a government with as bad a record as May's (and Johnson's) were able to go on about anyone else being a threat to national security, for example.  Yet that record was never seriously questioned.



No doubt. A return to effective management and presentation of centrist norms will bring some back to the fold. But a) doesn’t it risk driving away new supporters especially the young? and b) it will at best only improve Labour’s position. It will not be enough, nowhere near, to win an election.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 5, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No doubt. A return to effective management and presentation of centrist norms will bring some back to the fold. *But a) doesn’t it risk driving away new supporters especially the young?* and b) it will at best only improve Labour’s position. It will not be enough, nowhere near, to win an election.



By the time of the next GE, I expect the big shiny offer from the LP will be some version of their Green New Deal, which might? appeal to younger supporters (at least to an extent). 
And tbh that's not necessarily a bad policy in itself (IMO).

That's not to contradict your point (b) though .


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 6, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> On one hand Waitrose has gone up on my estimation. Despite the protestation of ‘balance’ he’s ripped out Corbyn supporters - especially those who supported Leave - and he’s packed the Shadow Cabinet with technocratic drones built in his own image. He’s also added two more NEC votes to his account. Nandy is both promoted and sidelined.
> 
> On the other hand who exactly does he imagine this faceless band of technocrats going to appeal to?
> 
> ...


Oh god. I know I’m going to regret this. Even assuming your argument here is correct (and I don’t agree with it, but I’m not going to get into that) he’s announced the five big names so far

•Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party •Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor •Lisa Nandy, Shadow Foreign Secretary •Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Home Secretary •Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

And two of the five (nandy and rayner) are not technocrats.

SNP doing pretty well in Scotland under former lawyer Nicola sturgeon.

who would have been your pick for shadow chancellor if not Dodds btw?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> who would have been your pick for shadow chancellor if not Dodds btw?



John McDonnell


----------



## brogdale (Apr 6, 2020)

Mrs B tells me that Dodds was on R4 this am talking about how much debt will result from the actions to 'save the economy'.
Here we fucking go.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

Burg-out


----------



## belboid (Apr 6, 2020)

I'm still trying to find any evidence of what AD actually believes in.  There's bugger all on her website or her old MEP site, it's all mindbogglingly vague.  Apparently she thinks companies should pay taxes, which is nice.


----------



## belboid (Apr 6, 2020)

Burgon out now too


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 6, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Burg-out


 Oh dear.


----------



## belboid (Apr 6, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor


why do you like her?  I really can't find out anything about her policy wise.  She is for tax justice and has some (academic) experience in her field.  But beyond that.....?  Can you actually point to any coherent economic viewpoint she has ever come out as supporting?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Barbara Keeley. Was in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. Not really part of his circle, more a party loyalist. Nevertheless always struck me as firmly on the left. She supported starmer in the leadership race and is (it would seem) delighted he won it. Not sure what this means (other than she wants to keep her job - which i hope she does)



Well she didn’t keep her job.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

Starmer can fuck right off in that case


----------



## kebabking (Apr 6, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Starmer can fuck right off in that case



Why?

Does Keely has talent that her replacement doesn't have? (I have no idea, it's not my field of interest...), or are you angry that a sychophant has been fired?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Why?
> 
> Does Keely has talent that her replacement doesn't have? (I have no idea, it's not my field of interest...), or are you angry that a sychophant has been fired?



Her sycophancy was weird - I took it as an attempt to keep a role which appears to itself have disappeared. Keeley was excellent in her role - and advocated for issues that many in the Labour Party wouldn’t go near (institutional abuse, ECT eg)

She had a ‘constituency’ (mental health and social care) and she fought for it. She kept out of factional battles. She took the initiative to speak to people and groups that political parties have long ignored - and recognised that improving MH services wasn’t as simple as just increasing funding. She _got_ stuff that most wouldn’t.


----------



## belboid (Apr 6, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Why?
> 
> Does Keely has talent that her replacement doesn't have? (I have no idea, it's not my field of interest...), or are you angry that a sychophant has been fired?


She's too old for Starmer, I think. 68 now, 72/3 by the next election.  He wants exciting young guns!  Who happen to be a bit more right-wing too.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

Indeed. She was a (welcome) shift to the left after Berger.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

What do you make of Jon Ashworth treelover?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

Steve Reed is in. Bit right wing isn’t he? Did get ‘Seni’s law’ through so fair play to him on that.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 6, 2020)

belboid said:


> why do you like her?  I really can't find out anything about her policy wise.  She is for tax justice and has some (academic) experience in her field.  But beyond that.....?  Can you actually point to any coherent economic viewpoint she has ever come out as supporting?


I liked the appointment because she comes across as bright and very competent in interviews & is somebody who is respected by all “factions”, including John McDonnell. Somebody like Rachel reeves, who loads of people were speculating would get the job, would have caused a big uproar.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

Alinn-Khan has got the MH brief (which makes sense). Social care being lobbed in with Health (Ashworh’s brief).


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Does any Oxford-dwelling Urban know what




			
				fakeplasticgirl said:
			
		

> Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor



is/was like as Oxford East constituency MP? 

My mate who lives there doesn't rate her, but he's a mega-Oxford United supporting anarcho-syndicalist


----------



## Sue (Apr 6, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> Does any Oxford-dwelling Urban know what
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She's only been MP since 2017 when the longstanding incumbent (Andrew Smith) retired (she was previously an MEP).

I've not lived in that constituency for a while now so can't judge her competence but she's part of that Oxford University Labour crowd. Privately educated then Oxford and her partner's deputy leader of Oxford City Council. That's as much as I know really


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 6, 2020)

Sue said:


> her partner's deputy leader of Oxford City Council.


Part of the crowd that attacked the IWCA or was that before his time?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2020)

Was going to ask if blackbird leys is in her constitiency


----------



## Sue (Apr 6, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Part of the crowd that attacked the IWCA or was that before his time?


Yep, he's been a councillor since 2002. His ward is nearby and includes a large estate (Rose Hill) as well as some much posher bits (Iffley).


----------



## Sue (Apr 6, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Was going to ask if blackbird leys is in her constitiency


Yes. They've been tinkering with the boundaries so not completely up to speed on the changes but Oxford East has always been most of Oxford proper. And BBL/ the car plant at Cowley etc are all east and in the constituency.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 6, 2020)

Good to have Oxford being discussed anyway  -- my mate lives in Rose Hill**
I now know Oxford really well for someone who's never lived there myself.

**(and another good mate lives in Kidlington -- Oxford West).


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Alinn-Khan has got the MH brief (which makes sense). Social care being lobbed in with Health (Ashworh’s brief).



not happy about social care being lumped in with health,.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 7, 2020)

treelover said:


> not happy about social care being lumped in with health,.



yeah. Doesn’t feel right to me. I can see social care being sidelined with this.


----------



## belboid (Apr 7, 2020)

treelover said:


> not happy about social care being lumped in with health,.


the, official,  Department is now the Dept of Health & Social Care, so it makes sense for them to copy that.  I can't see who was actually responsible for SC under Blair/Brown, they don't seem to have had a specific minister at all then.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 7, 2020)

belboid said:


> the, official,  Department is now the Dept of Health & Social Care, so it makes sense for them to copy that.  I can't see who was actually responsible for SC under Blair/Brown, they don't seem to have had a specific minister at all then.


Think that the LP could easily shadow the current arrangement with someone vaguely competent showing up Helen Whately for the lightweight former private health corp lobbyist that she is.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 7, 2020)

can’t speak for treelover, but my concern is twofold: 1) that putting health and social care together result in SC getting far less attention than it needs and 2) that separating MH and social care kind of misses the point in terms of what’s wrong with MH (which is largely that there’s nowhere near enough funding for and availability of social care services - this was something Keeley understood, not sure if RAK has the same knowledge of this but happy to find otherwise)


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2020)

gosub said:


> Rebecca Long-Bailey wins the argument
> 
> 
> There were jubilant scenes on the Corbynite wing of the Labour party after the results of the leadership election appeared to confirm that Rebecca Long-Bailey had won the argument.
> ...


She doesn't seem to be winning the argument here 









						Rebecca Long-Bailey defends working on PFI contracts as a lawyer
					

'You were part of a legal team that handed over ownership of £190million worth of NHS assets to a Luxembourg investment vehicle'




					inews.co.uk


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> the son of a toolmaker


Interesting li'l detail about this in a FT profile on starmer today.



Oh.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> Interesting li'l detail about this in a FT profile on starmer today.
> 
> View attachment 211362
> 
> Oh.



well, well, well.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> Interesting li'l detail about this in a FT profile on starmer today.
> 
> View attachment 211362
> 
> Oh.


It seems the only rag to make such a scurrilous allegation.


----------



## brogdale (May 7, 2020)

killer b said:


> Interesting li'l detail about this in a FT profile on starmer today.
> 
> View attachment 211362
> 
> Oh.


Yep...this is from the horse's mouth published in the Barn Theatre (Oxsted)  news sheet (2014):



Also, anyone with local knowledge, would probably understand why my eye was caught by the sentence starting "Originally from Woldingham..."

Woldingham...not many manual workers live there, for sure.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 7, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yep...this is from the horse's mouth published in the Barn Theatre (Oxsted)  news sheet (2014):
> 
> View attachment 211363
> 
> ...


Hmmm...when I was a kid I used to visit my dad’s power station. I’m not sure he actually owned Ferrybridge. 
maybe he was ex-working class
“the working class can kiss my arse, I’ve got the foreman’s job at last”


----------



## brogdale (May 7, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Hmmm...when I was a kid I used to visit my dad’s power station. I’m not sure he actually owned Ferrybridge.
> maybe he was ex-working class
> “the working class can kiss my arse, I’ve got the foreman’s job at last”


Maybe.


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> It seems the only rag to make such a scurrilous allegation.


It's the FT - they love bosses there. They think it's good he's the son of a boss.


----------



## brogdale (May 7, 2020)

Thinking about it, though, I suppose there'd be more of a digital (companies house type stuff) paper trail if Rod had owned his own factory?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 7, 2020)

Nobody going to make the joke about Keir's father being good at producing tools then?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 7, 2020)

I think it’s important we figure this out. We need to know if Kier is more or less Working Class than Jeremy. Currently Kier has the better credentials: father skilled trade (Jeremy’s a professional engineer), passed 11 plus and went to a grammar school (of course Jeremy went to a fee paying school). Kier first in family to university (Jeremy probably the fist in the family to drop out without a degree)...


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2020)

I just thought it was an interesting detail, as his fans and surrogates spent the whole of the leadership election campaign bigging him up as a horny handed son of toil. Not really interested in following it up beyond that tbh. At least Corbyn never felt it necessary to stretch the truth about his upbringing though huh.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> I just thought it was an interesting detail, as his fans and surrogates spent the whole of the leadership election campaign bigging him up as a horny handed son of toil. Not really interested in following it up beyond that tbh. At least Corbyn never felt it necessary to stretch the truth about his upbringing though huh.




There was a similar thing with Ruth Davidson. Presented continually in the press as being working class despite her father being the manager of a factory or some such. I think they were equating 'went to a comprehensive school' with being working class or something.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> I just thought it was an interesting detail, as his fans and surrogates spent the whole of the leadership election campaign bigging him up as a horny handed son of toil. Not really interested in following it up beyond that tbh. At least Corbyn never felt it necessary to stretch the truth about his upbringing though huh.


To be fair, it’s a single reference in the FT. I suspect if he had been the owner the Mail, Spectator, Torygraph etc would have been all over it. 

Anyway, it’s ok, we’re all friends here, and we all self-identify as being culturally working class on Urban, even if others don’t see us in that light.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> There was a similar thing with Ruth Davidson. Presented continually in the press as being working class despite her father being the manager of a factory or some such. I think they were equating 'went to a comprehensive school' with being working class or something.


But this is the problem with worrying too much about class. At what point do you get “promoted” out of the working class? Foreman? Head foreman?


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> But this is the problem with worrying too much about class. At what point do you get “promoted” out of the working class? Foreman? Head foreman?


Not sure what your point is. That class isn't important? That being working class is something to be 'promoted' out of? That how the press presents this stuff isn't interesting?


----------



## yield (May 8, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Anyway, it’s ok, we’re all friends here, and we all self-identify as being culturally working class on Urban, even if others don’t see us in that light.


Not all of us have the "cultural" capital to relocate to Brazil because we don't like something either


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 8, 2020)

yield said:


> Not all of us have the "cultural" capital to relocate to Brazil because we don't like something either


Fair point


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> To be fair, it’s a single reference in the FT. I suspect if he had been the owner the Mail, Spectator, Torygraph etc would have been all over it.


why would they have done that? their main interest in the Labour leadership was making sure RLB didn't get it, they were scarcely going to go in against the front runner in those circumstances



> Anyway, it’s ok, we’re all friends here, and we all self-identify as being culturally working class on Urban, even if others don’t see us in that light.


nah - I mean, I could pretend to be working class by claiming to be the son of a sewage treatment worker 'cause my dad briefly did that job when he was younger. But he spent most of his career as a teacher, so I don't.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Thinking about it, though, I suppose there'd be more of a digital (companies house type stuff) paper trail if Rod had owned his own factory?



I found him but errrr





__





						Rodney STARMER personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
					

Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity




					beta.companieshouse.gov.uk


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

Posh chins also a bit weird, what's he planning


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

(but not necessarily weird no directorship of the dad's tool factory - won't necessarily have been incorporated as a business, might have been sole trader/partnership owned, particularly if it was a small enterprise)


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

Interests: donkey shagging and capital punishment


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2020)

Turning out to be a top thread


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> To be fair, it’s a single reference in the FT. I suspect if he had been the owner the Mail, Spectator, Torygraph etc would have been all over it.


The Mail already had an effort, finding the FT thing a fair while back. Presumably they left it there as they couldn't find anything to suggest more than a boastful foreman.


Proper Tidy said:


> Interests: donkey shagging and capital punishment


Spymaster?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2020)

If you streetview the address listed above it's a bog standard thing.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

It's a worthy lawyer thing supporting people facing the death penalty tbf, obviously. Not 100% sure on the donkey thing though, could be sinister


----------



## Serge Forward (May 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> why would they have done that? their main interest in the Labour leadership was making sure RLB didn't get it, they were scarcely going to go in against the front runner in those circumstances
> 
> 
> nah - I mean, I could pretend to be working class by claiming to be the son of a sewage treatment worker 'cause my dad briefly did that job when he was younger. But he spent most of his career as a teacher, so I don't.


Since when did teachers become ruling class? All those on part time hourly paid and zero hours contracts will surely beg to differ.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2020)

Serge Forward said:


> Since when did teachers become ruling class? All those on part time hourly paid and zero hours contracts will surely beg to differ.


Fairly sure there's more classes than horny handed sons of toil and the ruling class tbf.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> The Mail already had an effort, finding the FT thing a fair while back. Presumably they left it there as they couldn't find anything to suggest more than a boastful foreman.
> 
> Spymaster?


On (sober) reflection, I think that's the top and bottom of the 'story'...looks like Rodney was just a bit casual with his phrasing in a light piece for his local theatre's newsletter. The Mail would certainly have gone further if there was anything to the idea that he actually owned the business.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> If you streetview the address listed above it's a bog standard thing.


Especially so by Oxted standards.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 8, 2020)

The trade of Toolmaker was regarded as the highest level of mechanical craftsmanship when I started as an apprentice millwright in 1974.
All the toolmakers where I worked wore collars and ties, despite the obvious health and safety aspect. The older ones expected you to call them Mister whatever there surnames were.
All of them looked down their noses at the rest of the workforce. Until they needed union backing of course. Obviously charge hands and supervisors in that department thought they were god’s gift.
ETA: I just remembered my old work colleague who was an apprentice at BAC at Weybridge telling me all the toolmakers there, besides wearing  collars and ties at work, used to commute wearing bowler hats.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> The trade of Toolmaker was regarded as the highest level of mechanical craftsmanship when I started as an apprentice millwright in 1974.
> All the toolmakers where I worked wore collars and ties, despite the obvious health and safety aspect. The older ones expected you to call them Mister whatever there surnames were.
> All of them looked down their noses at the rest of the workforce. Until they needed union backing of course.
> ETA: I just remembered my old work colleague who was an apprentice at BAC at Weybridge telling me all the toolmakers there, besides wearing  collars and ties at work, used to commute wearing bowler hats.


Labour aristocracy, eh?


----------



## Sprocket. (May 8, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Labour aristocracy, eh?


Exactly, I will never forget me and another couple of apprentices being a bit loud. One of the tool room chargehands  shouted at us to stop acting like council tenants.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 8, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> ETA: I just remembered my old work colleague who was an apprentice at BAC at Weybridge telling me all the toolmakers there, besides wearing  collars and ties at work, used to commute wearing bowler hats.


At my shipyard* it was the draughtsmen (a third of the workforce in those days) that used to wear the bowlers. When I started my apprenticeship ('85) I must have been the generation between bowlers and hardhats. There was always a heirachy between trades. 

_when I say "my shipyard" I did not actually OWN the shipyard*_, nor was I a director.

**Well, strictly speaking, we were privatised in '85 in an "employee led consortium" where the workforce ended up with 20% of the shares, so, technically, I was of the ruling class at an early age.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 8, 2020)

In '85 that shipyard had more apprentices than the rest of British industry put together, then we had the YOP and YTS schemes and industry was screwed.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 8, 2020)

....sorry, getting derailed and nostalgic


----------



## Serge Forward (May 8, 2020)

killer b said:


> Fairly sure there's more classes than horny handed sons of toil and the ruling class tbf.


The working class is not only "horny handed sons of toil". Sure, if you're a sociologist, government statistician, news editor, or into class identity politics, yes they are. If you have any interest in us some day demolishing the capitalist system, then the "more classes" you're sure about will always be spurious.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

Serge Forward said:


> The working class is not only "horny handed sons of toil". Sure, if you're a sociologist, government statistician, news editor, or into class identity politics, yes they are. If you have any interest in us some day demolishing the capitalist system, then the "more classes" you're sure about will always be spurious.



If I've understood your post right I think this is a bit off, while it may be true there are those who sell labour and those who exploit labour, there obviously are social class divisions which conflict with attempts to build political solidarity as demonstrated by sprocket and pseudonarcissus' posts before yours. I could have just misunderstood your post though


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2020)

Serge Forward said:


> The working class is not only "horny handed sons of toil".


I know they aren't, but you started with the weird binaries. A teacher might not be ruling class, but most of them - certainly in the 1980s when my dad became one,  and still in most cases now too - belong to the middle classes.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 8, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> The trade of Toolmaker was regarded as the highest level of mechanical craftsmanship when I started as an apprentice millwright in 1974.
> All the toolmakers where I worked wore collars and ties, despite the obvious health and safety aspect. The older ones expected you to call them Mister whatever there surnames were.
> All of them looked down their noses at the rest of the workforce. Until they needed union backing of course. Obviously charge hands and supervisors in that department thought they were god’s gift.
> ETA: I just remembered my old work colleague who was an apprentice at BAC at Weybridge telling me all the toolmakers there, besides wearing  collars and ties at work, used to commute wearing bowler hats.



The toolroom in ‘my factory’ was organised by a different union. They were AEU. The semi skilled were TGWU and the unskilled GMB. This also operated as an unofficial colour coding system - white workers AEU, black and white (by trade) TGWU and Asians in the GMB.

I remember all of the toolroom had voted for Thatcher (Major had just replaced her when I left school) and loads of them used to brag about their villas in Spain.

I applied to do an apprenticeship in there as their bonuses were unbelievable. The senior steward was part of the ‘interview panel’ who rejected my application. I fucking hated them after that...


----------



## Sprocket. (May 8, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The toolroom in ‘my factory’ was organised by a different union. They were AEU. The semi skilled were TGWU and the unskilled GMB. This also operated as an unofficial colour coding system - white workers AEU, black and white (by trade) TGWU and Asians in the GMB.
> 
> I remember all of the toolroom had voted for Thatcher (Major had just replaced her when I left school) and loads of them used to brag about their villas in Spain.
> 
> I applied to do an apprenticeship in there as their bonuses were unbelievable. The senior steward was part of the ‘interview panel’ who rejected my application. I fucking hated them after that...


I couldn’t agree with you more.
Where I was we were all in the AUEW as it was then. Though different sections for different skill levels.
But toolmakers, pah. They were just a bunch of elitist bastards as far as we were concerned and obviously all were only union members as most of Sheffield at the time operated closed shops. Self serving and self centred. I too realised then what an uphill struggle anyone trying to unify the working class would have.
ETA: The electricians were all in EPTU, but that’s another story.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Yep...this is from the horse's mouth published in the Barn Theatre (Oxsted)  news sheet (2014):
> 
> View attachment 211363
> 
> ...



sweet article


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

killer b said:


> Interesting li'l detail about this in a FT profile on starmer today.
> 
> View attachment 211362
> 
> Oh.


Oh no! Wish I hadn’t voted for him now


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)




----------



## oryx (May 9, 2020)

Unlike a lot of others on here I'm totally disinterested in Starmer's class background. He could have gone to Eton or been the son of a dustman for all I give a fuck. 

What matters is him holding the government to account and he's not doing that effectively. Far too appeasing. 

Also, he'll never win an election because he's an out-and-out remainer. I myself am an out-and-out remainer but don't think the Labour Party should be headed by one. His disappointing showing in the polls demonstrates this - no bounce, at a time when the tories should be shamed and vilified.

I didn't vote for her, but would be far happier to have seen Lisa Nandy as leader. Really not impressed with Starmer so far.


----------



## brogdale (May 9, 2020)

oryx said:


> Unlike a lot of others on here I'm totally disinterested in Starmer's class background. He could have gone to Eton or been the son of a dustman for all I give a fuck.



Starmer isn't. Any politician using class heuristics as a means of self-promotion can surely expect some scrutiny of their claims?
Particularly someone presuming to lead the party formed from organised labour.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> View attachment 211581



Fair play, must be quite tricky using pen and paper while cycling


----------



## Chilli.s (May 9, 2020)

oryx said:


> What matters is him holding the government to account and he's not doing that effectively. Far too appeasing.


This. 

It's like he is almost a tory too.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 9, 2020)

It’s just prolier than thou bs.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It’s just prolier than thou bs.


Not at all - just interested in the lies politicians tell about themselves, and why.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2020)

The prolier than thou people were those in the Starmer camp who kept shrieking 'son of a toolmaker! the most working class leader in decades!' throughout the leadership election.


----------



## agricola (May 9, 2020)

killer b said:


> The prolier than thou people were those in the Starmer camp who kept shrieking 'son of a toolmaker! the most working class leader in decades!' throughout the leadership election.



The worst bit about that is that is all they think working-class people care about; a sort of "he is whatever it is you lot are" thing that must be one of their diagnostic traits by now. 

If they'd told everyone his dad helped with club cycling and was a rambler (which I didn't know before reading the fakeplasticgirl post above) people of all sorts would think positively of him, but of course that would be impossible because they aren't interested in that and therefore it stands to reason no-one else would be.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 9, 2020)

killer b said:


> The prolier than thou people were those in the Starmer camp who kept shrieking 'son of a toolmaker! the most working class leader in decades!' throughout the leadership election.


He might actually be the most wc leader in a while, more so than Corbyn. Wasn’t RLB straight from the Salford docks also?

Its bs because people are happily voting in old Etonian leaders.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

killer b said:


> The prolier than thou people were those in the Starmer camp who kept shrieking 'son of a toolmaker! the most working class leader in decades!' throughout the leadership election.


The only reason I brought it up was because people on here were banging on about him being an upper class posho. I don’t care about his background.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 9, 2020)

Are toolmakers real proles or not?


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> The only reason I brought it up was because people on here were banging on about him being an upper class posho. I don’t care about his background.


it wasn't just you, or here. Yours was just the most recent post I could find about it here.


----------



## NoXion (May 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> The only reason I brought it up was because people on here were banging on about him being an upper class posho. I don’t care about his background.



So he's a traitor, then. Still a cunt either way.

No comment about his u-turn regarding rent controls? Popular with the public but not with landlords. We can all see who he's really working for.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> He might actually be the most wc leader in a while



Now this is prolier than thou. Also bollocks. Corbyn is posh, Starmer is posh. He's a fucking knight.


----------



## Deadstick 1944 (May 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> He might actually be the most wc leader in a while, more so than Corbyn. Wasn’t RLB straight from the Salford docks also?
> 
> Its bs because people are happily voting in old Etonian leaders.


Yes, some people sure know their place,now they will pay for it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

Is Sir Keir Starmer KCB PC QC MP, former DPP, working class or not cos his dad did a highly skilled manual job at a time when a much larger proportion of the population did manual work or nah is the most fucking bizarre political talking point in an increasingly bizarre political era. Fuck off. Looks posh, sounds posh, is posh.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

NoXion said:


> So he's a traitor, then. Still a cunt either way.
> 
> No comment about his u-turn regarding rent controls? Popular with the public but not with landlords. We can all see who he's really working for.


Traitor? for doing well for himself? Nice use of language.

I don’t have to agree with every labour policy to still think starmer is miles better than what came before.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

Has anybody established yet if he knows what mushy peas are


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

'doing well for himself' ugh


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> 'doing well for himself' ugh


“Traitor” urgh


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

Anyway, whatevs, I’m off. Byeeee urban


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> “Traitor” urgh



The doing well for themselves thing implies that any w/c person can get rich/run a country etc if they just work hard enough. Its a small step behind the politics of envy


----------



## NoXion (May 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Traitor? for doing well for himself? Nice use of language.
> 
> I don’t have to agree with every labour policy to still think starmer is miles better than what came before.



Starmer being a knight and a QC is much more than just "doing well for himself". He's lodged in the arse of the very beast that throws workers' bodies on the pyre.

So fucking over renters is OK because it's not Corbyn doing it?


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> 'doing well for himself' ugh


he didn't drop out of uni like loser corbyn


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

How can someone be a passionate supporter of Keir Starmer? It'd be like if mayonaise was your favourite food. Weird.


----------



## NoXion (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> How can someone be a passionate supporter of Keir Starmer? It'd be like if mayonaise was your favourite food. Weird.



To be honest I think mayonnaise is a little too spicy and exotic for Keir fans.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

He is very much the post richie edwards manic street preachers of current political leaders isn't he. Can't see the appeal but then REM sold a fuckload of records


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Starmer being a knight and a QC is much more than just "doing well for himself". He's lodged in the arse of the very beast that throws workers' bodies on the pyre.
> 
> So fucking over renters is OK because it's not Corbyn doing it?


Knighted does services to criminal justice.

working for free to end the death penalty abroad. McLibel.
What a wanker.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> He is very much the post richie edwards manic street preachers of current political leaders isn't he. Can't see the appeal but then REM sold a fuckload of records


I used to love REM


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

Tbh I hate the man so much I would bring back the death penalty here just to spite him


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 9, 2020)

As for the rent policy: Labour aren’t even in government and the tories have a majority of 80. Changing the policy isn’t going to pressurise the tories.
Also I’m not sure it's as simple as just saying "cancel the rent". I don’t give a fuck about individual landlords but the knock on effects of a housing price crash could be pretty disastrous. Obviously it'd mean cheaper housing which is good, but it would have all sorts of other effects too. Maybe labour's policy is the wrong one, but i do think it's a lot more complex than some people are making out.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

Fair enough point that labour's stance is largely irrelevant but it's what it signals isn't it. Which is the point, starmer's policy intended to signal labour will be a gently reforming but largely business as usual govt.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2020)

I guess there's a choice to be made with the whole _people who can't afford to pay rent because they've lost their job due to corona_ situation - you can propose policies that might help tenants, that might shift the balance of power even a tiny bit in the direction of the tenants, who - lets not forget - can't afford to pay the rent on the houses they live in because they've lost their jobs etc. Or, you can suck landlord dick.

And so here we are.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2020)

Labour's position isn't irrelevant politically anyway - Surely one of the whole points of being a political party is to propose different ways of doing things to the party in government. Why would you even bother otherwise?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 9, 2020)

Funny how Corbyn was always failing to use the apparently enormous power of the Leader of the Opposition, but now we're back to 'what can he do anyway?' And this version is the effective opposition.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2020)

killer b said:


> Labour's position isn't irrelevant politically anyway - Surely one of the whole points of being a political party is to propose different ways of doing things to the party in government. Why would you even bother otherwise?



Well yeah I agree, obviously there is fuck all chance of any labour policy being enacted but it matters cos of what it tells you about what a labour govt would be like, and tbf to the last labour leader there is a solid argument that labour's positioning to left of the political comfort zone dragged that comfort zone back a bit, or at least arrested the escalation under the last labour govt and cameron/osborne


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> there is a solid argument that labour's positioning to left of the political comfort zone dragged that comfort zone back a bit, or at least arrested the escalation under the last labour govt and cameron/osborne


perhaps, but a lot of the reason the argument was dragged back that way is because they nearly won the 2017 general election with a unambiguously left wing manifesto. The current Labour Party, even if they wanted to, just don't pose the same ideological/political threat Corbyn's labour  between 2017 - 2019 did.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well yeah I agree, obviously there is fuck all chance of any labour policy being enacted but it matters cos of what it tells you about what a labour govt would be like, and tbf to the last labour leader there is a solid argument that labour's positioning to left of the political comfort zone dragged that comfort zone back a bit, or at least arrested the escalation under the last labour govt and cameron/osborne



Labour's policy making process is somewhat tortuous....let's see what the general direction looks like after conference. 

At the moment the only thing is corona virus, and that's all about Boris's management competence, rather then policy..we will then go straight to a shitty Brexit deal..which is Boris's...if (when) if goes badly, Labour have the advantage of saying "told you so", but that to do about it is policy for conference '21.

The election is a long way away...I'm not sure the Tories will keep Boris that long.


----------



## ska invita (May 9, 2020)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Labour's policy making process is somewhat tortuous....let's see what the general direction looks like after conference.
> 
> At the moment the only thing is corona virus, and that's all about Boris's management competence, rather then policy..we will then go straight to a shitty Brexit deal..which is Boris's...if (when) if goes badly, Labour have the advantage of saying "told you so", but that to do about it is policy for conference '21.
> 
> The election is a long way away...I'm not sure the Tories will keep Boris that long.


True, but there's so much room for pushing the policy envelope because of c19 , door is opening wide. No sense of purpose from Labour in regard that, other than perhaps complaining about the draft.

A lot can be done now, October is ages away


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> As for the rent policy: Labour aren’t even in government and the tories have a majority of 80. Changing the policy isn’t going to pressurise the tories.
> Also I’m not sure it's as simple as just saying "cancel the rent". I don’t give a fuck about individual landlords but the knock on effects of a housing price crash could be pretty disastrous. Obviously it'd mean cheaper housing which is good, but it would have all sorts of other effects too. Maybe labour's policy is the wrong one, but i do think it's a lot more complex than some people are making out.



This country is living in  exceptional times. The normal rules of the economy have been set aside and your concerned about house prices?

Here is Danny Dorling and Sian Berry ( Green party)

 by

The no eviction rule is time limited. Landlords can still get possession orders its that they cannot act on them. Chuck people on the street.

Potentially when the no eviction period ends a lot of people suddenly could find themselves evicted.

I know someonne  who has been given notice to quit by private landllord. Date to leave is day after the time limited no eviction ends. They arent behind on rent.Its that landlord wants the house back.

This is not complex problem. Landlords have had it easy for decades. Even my New Labour Council wants rent controls back.

Here is example of law ( from a USA democrat) proposed in US:










						Proposal: Cancel Rent And Mortgages Due To Coronavirus
					

Yes, all your rent and mortgage payments.




					www.forbes.com
				




Its this that Starmer could be proposing as alternative.

It lays out support for private landlords on proviso that they abide by fair rents etc in future or buying the property off the landlord to turn it into social housing.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The no eviction rule is time limited. Landlords can still get possession orders its that they cannot act on them. Chuck people on the street.


and not limited for very long either, many people wont have had their benefits/redundancy/gov support kick in by the time it is due to end!  Good piece on todays graun:









						Thousands of renters could be evicted in June. Will the government protect them? | David Renton
					

The coronavirus-related freeze on evictions is ending – and the new ‘pre-action protocol’ relies on the kindness of landlords, says barrister David Renton




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## brogdale (May 9, 2020)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> Also I’m not sure it's as simple as just saying "cancel the rent". I don’t give a fuck about individual landlords but the knock on effects of a housing price crash could be pretty disastrous. Obviously it'd mean cheaper housing which is good, but it would have all sorts of other effects too. Maybe labour's policy is the wrong one, but i do think it's a lot more complex than some people are making out.


If cheaper housing is, as you say, a given from a 'housing price crash'...not sure what you mean other disastrous effects?


----------

