Another thoughtful John Harris article on where Labour went wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...y-leadership-keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
Paul Mason backing Starmer.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/0...eader-must-be-honest-about-reasons-party-lost
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/0...eader-must-be-honest-about-reasons-party-lost
I’m bored of this leadership race already. To think there’s another 60+ days of it.
It does seem unnecessarily long... And boring
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is pretty much the problem, there's no debate happening. Starmer is offering nothing that could offend anybody and seems content to run the clock down. RLB is from the Corbyn wing so can't disagree with anything that Labour have been doing for the last 4 years. With those two being the front runners there's no-one really driving a debate. Nandy is trying to some degree, but no-one is picking the issues up.
Also the new leadership election system is really bad. Quite what the point in the additional CLP/Union nomination stage is I've no idea.
Labour still looking to push the militant side I saw today. Bringing people in based on what strikes they've organised and how much they believed in Corbyn's manifesto. I know because quite a prominent Labour politician was openly discussing it on a train. Names, titles, plans, everything.
Good job they wont be anywhere near any power any time soon.
Good job they wont be anywhere near any power any time soon.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I wish he realised how crap he is
Bot accounts are really killing twitter.
I don't think it's meant badly. I've actually been fairly impressed with RLB. She's quite funny.
In a dim sort of way?
Looks like thornberry will miss the CLP threshold
Nandy on the cusp (perhaps this is why Phillips backed out?)
Looks like being a 2 or 3 way contest
If momentum can keep nandy off the list and find an ice pick for starmer (or some kompromat) they might manage to get their becky in place
https://labourlist.org/2020/02/what-clp-nominations-tell-us-about-labours-leadership-race-so-far/
Nandy on the cusp (perhaps this is why Phillips backed out?)
Looks like being a 2 or 3 way contest
If momentum can keep nandy off the list and find an ice pick for starmer (or some kompromat) they might manage to get their becky in place
https://labourlist.org/2020/02/what-clp-nominations-tell-us-about-labours-leadership-race-so-far/
Last edited:
And Starmer can't help being a "white privileged male" can he now?
I just listened to RLB's interview on Novara Media. As I say I like her, seems like a good person and has a dry sense of humour that's very appealing. Not the person I would want to be leader of the Labour party as I think the Conservatives will win easily next time should she be elected as she's too left wing.
the left never held it against corbyn so should be ok i guess
True, but then again Jeremy was surely only intended to make the break through to power as a loveable (and proven) ageing standard bearer of the left (presumably for such as RLB to follow and consolidate) and was not seen as the long term future for the left. Corbyn's apparent ability to galvanise the young after the Brexit referendum and to improve the Labour turnout in the 2017 election, ensured he was 'cemented-in' as leader even after Labour lost that election. Jeremy demonstrated his 'pulling power' with the young left in showing the way forward to the promised land, even if subsequently his political antenna failed him and it remained lodged in the 1970's "the state will provide everything" mantra.
Starmer, being the only male amongst a short list of females and being white and privileged as well, could find that these two 'inconvenient truths' working against him, both within sections of the left leaning labour constituency overall, as well as within Labours female (positive discrimination) lobby. Beyond the Labour party membership Starmer probably has the most realistic chance of winning over voters, especially if any Brexit aftermath predicted by the remainers, comes true, but will the embedded momentum group see that as something they can support?
momentum will support RLB and burgon ... thankfully I don't think there is enough lunatics left to take over the asylum and neither will win
Momentum are backing Rayner not Burgon.
Corbyn benefited from what the membership saw as a lack of any strong alternatives and a serious dismay at what seemed to be the direction of the party. I don't see RLB benefiting from those things this time around although she is miles better than Corbyn was.
I don't think Starmer's ethnicity or gender will work against him either, he seems to be polling the highest out of the candidates among all demographics.
I am starting to wish that Nandy had more of a chance to be honest.
Wasn't rlb and Raynor supposedly a joint ticket at one point?...
Absolute balloon.
He’s outdone himself here.
I don’t even know where to start. I think even @Sweet Square can admit to this being a terrible idea.
Just look at his big dumb face.
I think it was meant to be the other way round.
The Tories win new voters every day because of this fecking halfwit.
So......Labour Party members get to make the choice potentially of whether we go to war or not. Did I read that right?
i really dgaf who becomes labour leader let alone deputy leader, but why is this a bad idea.
Surely you can see giving a vote to party members as to whether to back military action abroad is a fecking lunatic idea?
based on the tweet, the idea is they have to approve of something already on the table, not that they can unilaterally ask the uk to invade estonia or whatever?
So every party member is going to be giving access to top secret and sensitive data?
There's the matter of timing, if you need to take a vote the enemy has much longer to prepare. Wars should be in the general national interest, so shouldn't be party political. A referendum would make slightly more sense than a poll of labour party members. Loads of other reasons too about information etc.
I'd maintain my membership just to get in on the MI6 conference call.
Imagine the questions!
Giving a veto on military action to a small group of people who pay for the privilege, have absolutely no experience or access to military intelligence, and get most of their opinions from twitter? What could possibly go wrong?
No, when there is a prospect of a war of choice, as almost every war the UK has ever fought has been, for example with Syria or Libya, these things tend to get discussed publicly by the press and politicians.
it depends on how what you mean by general national interest, i'm not sure there are many wars which are uiformly in everyone's interest, and vice-versa (for every war there is almost surely someone in who's interest it is). political parties represent different sections of people, with their own interests, and hence their reactions to potential wars might be different.
for example, britain's decision to team up with the other entente powers and invade russia in 1917 on the side of the tsars was in the interest of the british bourgeois and the aristocracy, who wanted to ensure the quick end of proletarian revolution, but was not in the interest of some people who had left-wing or internationalist ideals.
regarding a referendum, but his proposal is about his own party. i'd guess part of the logic is that decision makers within any party are much less likely to know people who will get killed in a war, while members might.