Jump to content
king canary

New Labour Leader

Recommended Posts

On 23/01/2020 at 13:00, Van wink said:

The tax cuts point is missing what happened imo KG

The Tory landslide was about a massive feeling of injustice felt by those that voted to leave and the lack of any electable alternative.

I would have voted for a party that favoured leaving but with a close trading relationship, that wasn’t on offer from anyone.

There will still be a close trading relationship but on our terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, this is a thread about the election of a new Leader of the Labour Party. Take your continuing rambles about Brexit on to the appropriate thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that remark depends on a definition of right wing, which for each of us is probably different.

Right wing probably isn't always the right definition Winky. I probably also mean the growing Nationalist ideology. Some of the speeches that came out of the Brexit fiasco worry me. We cannot be isolationist. Brexit is over and done. But we have to accept there are other points of view regarding trade, law, human rights etc.

Idiots like Francois and Rees Mogg worry me. Relying on history is no good. Those wishing to return to seeking Britain as everything from a Naval power to running plantations, is not only a dream but a dangerous one.

I think Boris is more Liberal than that as you say and hopefully with an 80 seat majority he can rid himself of the ERG support

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprises, but Mccluskey and Unite have backed Long Bailey. 

And Richard Burgon. 

Jesus wept. 

Edited by Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thornberry gone.

Now please hurry up and get it sorted. We need an opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thornberry gone.

Now please hurry up and get it sorted. We need an opposition.

Has anyone asked Cummings yet. He is running everything now. Democracy say the usual suspects. You don't know what it is say I.
It is looking increasingly a contest between Starmer and Long Bailey. Not sure I'll vote for either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

It is looking increasingly a contest between Starmer and Long Bailey. Not sure I'll vote for either.

I would say Starmer is the more electable, but meh, what do I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:
 
It is looking increasingly a contest between Starmer and Long Bailey. Not sure I'll vote for either.

If I was a Labour supporter like your good self then I would be praying for a Starmer win as anything else will make Labour even more irrelevant than they are now.

But TBF unless and until Labour ditch their arrogant stance on working with other progressive parties they aren't going to win a General Election whoever is leader.

Edited by Creative Midfielder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say Starmer is the more electable, but meh, what do I know.

You are probably right. Policies don't matter any more. It is all about personality. Mind you, I think Long Bailey, someone who got it completely wrong at the last election, has a bit of a nerve to be standing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You are probably right. Policies don't matter any more. It is all about personality. Mind you, I think Long Bailey, someone who got it completely wrong at the last election, has a bit of a nerve to be standing. 

Ideologically, Jeremy Corbyn had a lot to offer, but he was never likely to overcome the right wing press, that despite modern communication methods still manages to pervade influence over the masses. Any potential Labour Prime Minister has to have the trust of enough of the establishment to convince the rest to at least hold their noses. 

It is galling to know that many of the folk that voted for Johnson did so without any real information and were so easily influenced into it by out and out untruths from the popular press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideologically, Jeremy Corbyn had a lot to offer, but he was never likely to overcome the right wing press, that despite modern communication methods still manages to pervade influence over the masses. Any potential Labour Prime Minister has to have the trust of enough of the establishment to convince the rest to at least hold their noses. 

It is galling to know that many of the folk that voted for Johnson did so without any real information and were so easily influenced into it by out and out untruths from the popular press.

I'm probably clutching at straws but people voted for the Tories last December, mainly for Brexit, based on what was available to them at the time. Now before the front benches have been warmed up again, he has brought in a different government. People didn't vote for that. For all we know, all the newbies may be raving right wing fascists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

Ideologically, Jeremy Corbyn had a lot to offer

 

😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2020 at 12:53, Daz Sparks said:

Ideologically, Jeremy Corbyn had a lot to offer, but he was never likely to overcome the right wing press, that despite modern communication methods still manages to pervade influence over the masses. Any potential Labour Prime Minister has to have the trust of enough of the establishment to convince the rest to at least hold their noses. 

It is galling to know that many of the folk that voted for Johnson did so without any real information and were so easily influenced into it by out and out untruths from the popular press.

I'm a dyed in the wool Labour supporter and I don't believe Corbyn had a lot to offer ideologically. Some of his general ideas were fine but policy wise the last manifesto was a total joke and a gift to people who want to paint left wingers as economically illiterate hippies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, king canary said:

I'm a dyed in the wool Labour supporter and I don't believe Corbyn had a lot to offer ideologically. Some of his general ideas were fine but policy wise the last manifesto was a total joke and a gift to people who want to paint left wingers as economically illiterate hippies.

 

Of course, the bloke was totally unelectable, but having said that, I had time for his views on social justice, corporate responsibility, inclusion, workers rights, attitudes to world peace. But if you can't show that you are trustworthy custodian of the public purse, you won't get elected.

Somewhat earlier in the thread I was offering up the idea that Starmer is eminently more electable, but your post appears to focus mostly on one point I make. I am happy to debate, but do me the courtesy of reasonable evaluation of what is posted and then we may well have a decent chew of the fat over it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It turned out that Corbyn was unelectable. Funny that in the previous election, not three years hence had been a triumph for him when people said similar things and he increased Labour members in the House. And with not dissimilar policies. 

I think the difference was Brexit. 

But now that the damage has been done, the party has to recover. And who knows, once again Brexit, or the result of leaving may well make the party more popular and the Tories less so.

I will be voting for Nandy, Starmer and Bailey in that order. 

I also think it is time to become more involved in the Party than just a member. Labour, taking Brexit from the equation, lost so much grass root support. Many in the party don't care and want the policies to continue unchanged and argue that it shouldn't change just to get in power. I can't subscribe to that. That just keeps the Tories in and Thatcher proved that one term can change so much and make it difficult for any policy let alone left wing ones.

We have to have policies that no one can argue will benefit ALL and not just some and ones that opponents cannot pick holes in.

I do fear in Long Bailey, the composer of that long, no pun, suicide note in December. we would be ridiculed and become a joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

It turned out that Corbyn was unelectable. Funny that in the previous election, not three years hence had been a triumph for him when people said similar things and he increased Labour members in the House. And with not dissimilar policies. 

I think the difference was Brexit. 

But now that the damage has been done, the party has to recover. And who knows, once again Brexit, or the result of leaving may well make the party more popular and the Tories less so.

I will be voting for Nandy, Starmer and Bailey in that order. 

I also think it is time to become more involved in the Party than just a member. Labour, taking Brexit from the equation, lost so much grass root support. Many in the party don't care and want the policies to continue unchanged and argue that it shouldn't change just to get in power. I can't subscribe to that. That just keeps the Tories in and Thatcher proved that one term can change so much and make it difficult for any policy let alone left wing ones.

We have to have policies that no one can argue will benefit ALL and not just some and ones that opponents cannot pick holes in.

I do fear in Long Bailey, the composer of that long, no pun, suicide note in December. we would be ridiculed and become a joke. 

Is that the same Lisa Nandy who just said that the child rapist Christopher Worton, who raped a teenage girl five times, but has since self-identified as a woman, should a) have his crimes recorded as commited by a woman & b) be housed in a women's prison.?

I thought us right-wingers were supposed to be the nut-jobs but the Labour leadership candidates are living in a delusional transgender fantasy world that is going to end up with people getting badly hurt and maybe even killed. And they think they're going to win the Warrington vote? That's beyond sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cummings has just appointed a eugenicist as an advisor. You are nut jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Herman said:

Cummings has just appointed a eugenicist as an advisor. You are nut jobs. 

Everyone is. That is the problem.

You're right- having a eugenicist on your staff is insane. Equally RTB is right that the quote from Nandy is also insane (and I say this as someone who was pretty certain I was voting for her).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

Of course, the bloke was totally unelectable, but having said that, I had time for his views on social justice, corporate responsibility, inclusion, workers rights, attitudes to world peace. But if you can't show that you are trustworthy custodian of the public purse, you won't get elected.

Somewhat earlier in the thread I was offering up the idea that Starmer is eminently more electable, but your post appears to focus mostly on one point I make. I am happy to debate, but do me the courtesy of reasonable evaluation of what is posted and then we may well have a decent chew of the fat over it.

 

This seems an oddly hostile response to my post to be honest.

My debate with you isn't about whether Corbyn was/wasn't electable (he clearly wasn't) but for the reasons. The point I took from your post was that it was the media's fault that Corbyn was seen as unelectable- I think Corbyn made himself unelectable.

His foreign policy is straight from the 6th form common room- 'the west is bad! America is evil! Therefore anyone anti West/anti America is good!'

His economic policy really did just boil down to us vs them economic populism which isn't actually that popular in this country, with a bunch of 'free stuff for all' chucked in. 

The man and the people he surrounded himself with were walking liabilities. When you've got lifelong Labour voters either not voting for them or having to seriously hold their noses to do so then I think it clearly goes beyond a hostile media environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

It turned out that Corbyn was unelectable. Funny that in the previous election, not three years hence had been a triumph for him when people said similar things and he increased Labour members in the House. And with not dissimilar policies. 

I think the difference was Brexit. 

I don't in essence disagree but would make the following points: 

1. Although the last election was a very poor one for the labour party in terms if seats, he didn't actually do that badly in votes gained. The 2016 election saw Labour gain more votes (other than 1997) than it had done since 1966. I'm not sure how this was achieved if people were so frightened of his "left wing" policies. It supports your analysis that the handling of Brexit was farcical - but to a large extent that was the fault of the "right" of the party refusing to accept the referendum result.

2. The handling of the anti-semitism issue was disastrous. It displayed an alarming level of prejudice and naivety as well as a concerning level of incompetence.

3. Although electorally defeated, I would point to the impact that the opposition had on the direction of policy. Johnson won, partly because of the promises he made on the NHS/ Police etc which the Labour Party had pushed so hard in 2016. The public sector agenda was more effective than the muddled agenda of Miliband. Johnson's "move to the left" took the ground away from the Labour Party and led to a rather silly election campaign of trying to out-promise each other.

4. Even with the disastrous outcome in 2019, Corbyn's labour still gained more votes than Miliband 2015, Brown 2010 and Blair in 2005. This is despite losing ground in the ex-heartland of Scotland.

There is a simplistic analysis that the Labour party did so badly because it was "so left wing," but the truth is rather more complex. Brexit; anti-semitism; incompetence; party division; loss of Scottish votes should all be factored into the equation. It suits many party's agenda to suggest it was simply a left-right issue within the party but the truth is far more complex.

Having said that, personally, I would not not chose RLB, but then I'm not a Labour party member (although a sometimes voter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, king canary said:

This seems an oddly hostile response to my post to be honest.

My debate with you isn't about whether Corbyn was/wasn't electable (he clearly wasn't) but for the reasons. The point I took from your post was that it was the media's fault that Corbyn was seen as unelectable- I think Corbyn made himself unelectable.

His foreign policy is straight from the 6th form common room- 'the west is bad! America is evil! Therefore anyone anti West/anti America is good!'

His economic policy really did just boil down to us vs them economic populism which isn't actually that popular in this country, with a bunch of 'free stuff for all' chucked in. 

The man and the people he surrounded himself with were walking liabilities. When you've got lifelong Labour voters either not voting for them or having to seriously hold their noses to do so then I think it clearly goes beyond a hostile media environment.

No hostility intended at all. As I say, merely a debate to be had. 

At this junction though, seems reasonable to leave it where it is 🙂  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

I don't in essence disagree but would make the following points: 

1. Although the last election was a very poor one for the labour party in terms if seats, he didn't actually do that badly in votes gained. The 2016 election saw Labour gain more votes (other than 1997) than it had done since 1966. I'm not sure how this was achieved if people were so frightened of his "left wing" policies. It supports your analysis that the handling of Brexit was farcical - but to a large extent that was the fault of the "right" of the party refusing to accept the referendum result.

2. The handling of the anti-semitism issue was disastrous. It displayed an alarming level of prejudice and naivety as well as a concerning level of incompetence.

3. Although electorally defeated, I would point to the impact that the opposition had on the direction of policy. Johnson won, partly because of the promises he made on the NHS/ Police etc which the Labour Party had pushed so hard in 2016. The public sector agenda was more effective than the muddled agenda of Miliband. Johnson's "move to the left" took the ground away from the Labour Party and led to a rather silly election campaign of trying to out-promise each other.

4. Even with the disastrous outcome in 2019, Corbyn's labour still gained more votes than Miliband 2015, Brown 2010 and Blair in 2005. This is despite losing ground in the ex-heartland of Scotland.

There is a simplistic analysis that the Labour party did so badly because it was "so left wing," but the truth is rather more complex. Brexit; anti-semitism; incompetence; party division; loss of Scottish votes should all be factored into the equation. It suits many party's agenda to suggest it was simply a left-right issue within the party but the truth is far more complex.

Having said that, personally, I would not not chose RLB, but then I'm not a Labour party member (although a sometimes voter).

I maintain that Corbyn and the momentum 'left' misunderstood the 2017 election result. It was not a vote for 'Corbyn' but a vote against May and for many an opportunity to clip May's ERG Brexit wings by lending a vote to Labour as being at least neutral on Brexit - in the sure knowledge that Corbyn wouldn't actually win!  

However - as noted Johnson has discovered Corbyn's magic money tree and apart from Brexit is in many ways a liberal (if it suits him). His spending infra-structure plans will of course bear no fruit in this electoral cycle but at least the 'feel good' sound-bites serve to cover the yawning reality chasm that is opening as the result of Brexit and the trade negotiations start to bite.

For labour Starmer is the obvious credible 'way back' to the voters. Lisa Nandy's time will come but only Starmer is currently capable of landing some punches onto the government and holding them to account. RLB would be the end for Labour as a credible opposition let alone a party of government.  

Edited by Yellow Fever
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

1. Although the last election was a very poor one for the labour party in terms if seats, he didn't actually do that badly in votes gained. The 2016 election saw Labour gain more votes (other than 1997) than it had done since 1966. I'm not sure how this was achieved if people were so frightened of his "left wing" policies. It supports your analysis that the handling of Brexit was farcical - but to a large extent that was the fault of the "right" of the party refusing to accept the referendum result.

Vote numbers are far less important than vote shares.

Without doing a forensic analysis, I'd imagine Labour probably piled up the votes in Cities that were already broadly Labour while losing them elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the same Lisa Nandy who just said that the child rapist Christopher Worton, who raped a teenage girl five times, but has since self-identified as a woman, should a) have his crimes recorded as commited by a woman & b) be housed in a women's prison.?

I thought us right-wingers were supposed to be the nut-jobs but the Labour leadership candidates are living in a delusional transgender fantasy world that is going to end up with people getting badly hurt and maybe even killed. And they think they're going to win the Warrington vote? That's beyond sick.

You really are the pits. We know you probably think any LGBT person wants locking up and that they don't have a life or personality of their own. And to compare this idiot to LGBT people is pathetic. I do not understand, from what I have read, why Nandy said this. I guess the same as you don't understand why Johnson said Erdogan had **** with a goat or Obama was a part Kenyan or that xenophobia should be worn as a medal.

And all this has happened on the Tory watch. They have let him out. And that sounds an equally stupid remark to counter yours.

And what the hell has the election of the new Labour leader got to do with you? I've told you before. Stay on the topics that suit you. Which is the Brexit thread. Tat was black and white and didn't involve any delicate problems in life that you do not have the ability to contribute to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Is that the same Lisa Nandy who just said that the child rapist Christopher Worton, who raped a teenage girl five times, but has since self-identified as a woman, should a) have his crimes recorded as commited by a woman & b) be housed in a women's prison.?

I thought us right-wingers were supposed to be the nut-jobs but the Labour leadership candidates are living in a delusional transgender fantasy world that is going to end up with people getting badly hurt and maybe even killed. And they think they're going to win the Warrington vote? That's beyond sick.

You really are the pits. We know you probably think any LGBT person wants locking up and that they don't have a life or personality of their own. And to compare this idiot to LGBT people is pathetic. I do not understand, from what I have read, why Nandy said this. I guess the same as you don't understand why Johnson said Erdogan had **** with a goat or Obama was a part Kenyan or that xenophobia should be worn as a medal.

And all this has happened on the Tory watch. They have let him out. And that sounds an equally stupid remark to counter yours.

And what the hell has the election of the new Labour leader got to do with you? I've told you before. Stay on the topics that suit you. Which is the Brexit thread. Tat was black and white and didn't involve any delicate problems in life that you do not have the ability to contribute to. 

KG- unfortunately, RTB isn't really misrepresenting what was said.

Nandy was asked what should happen in cases such as Worton, where someone has committed sexual crimes against women but now identifies as female. 

For me, it is insane to lock a convicted rapist who has committed crimes specifically against women in a women's prison just because he now ID's as female. Similarly, it is insane to record those crimes as committed by a woman when recording crime statistics by **** is hugely important to understanding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, king canary said:

Vote numbers are far less important than vote shares.

Without doing a forensic analysis, I'd imagine Labour probably piled up the votes in Cities that were already broadly Labour while losing them elsewhere. 

This rather proves your point, KC. That and the fact that constitiencies the Tories won tended to have smaller than average electorates, while Labout constituencies are now tending to be larger than average.

image.thumb.png.77d653d70f66ab19d2cc71da26265f3d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...