Ideally they’d scrap it as it’s pointless. From the candidates I’d go Raynor.
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Agree on both there.
RLB has been terrible since the election defeat. From giving Corbyn 10/10, to blaming the media for Corbyn’s defeat, to referring to Miliband as ‘Tory-lite’. The fact she is Corbyns and Momrntums choice for the leadership should set alarm bells ringing. I can only hope enough people have signed up and are going to vote any of the other candidates in because RLB would be the worst choice by far.
Sadly I don’t think they have and I think she’ll win. RLB and BurgonIf I don’t laugh I’ll cry.
I must admit its tempting to vote for him just for a laugh
One of the most awkward gigs of my life was being at Download watching Maiden and our man pausing to give a speech demanding we all cheered for the British armed forces.
It depends on whether Labour is interested in appealing to those millions of predominantly Northern, mainly Leave (I Voted Tory once only) former supporters; you know those northern (hecky-thump!) types, otherwise previously referred to as racists and bigots and thick as two short planks voters, back to the fold? If they do, then they need to ditch all of the current contenders, except perhaps possibly give Nandy a go.
If they are not interested and only want to stand around the edges of power shouting rude words to Boris, then they could appoint any of the candidates, doesn't matter who!
If they are not interested and only want to stand around the edges of power shouting rude words to Boris, then they could appoint any of the candidates, doesn't matter who!
A lot of those are long term conservatives (emphasis on the small 'c') over the retirement age who previously voted Labour out of a sense of loyalty. I don't think we get those back. I think they've broken the habit now. I think it's foolish to try.
Whether Labour can win those seats back depends on two things. Whether people still feel brexit was wise in 2024 and whether this government wants to invest in northern towns.
If brexit were to somehow appear to be going okay and good investments in local infrastructure in these areas are made then frankly they won't be winnable.
I find that quite unlikely. So I think the then disillusioned working age population of these areas can absolutely be won over in four years time with specific plans for green infrastructure projects in their areas.
The public will have this association with Starmer(Or anyone from the labour party) if the press bang on about it enough. Starmer has already called Corbyn his friend and being part of his shadow cabinet.The public don't think of the Labour Party as a political party made up of different fractions, so Starmer being from a different wing will be lost on them and people will just see him as a continuation of the Corbyn project. Christ, there are people in Britain who think Corbyn and Blair as completely the same politically.
Me - We need to democratic labour party, in order to democratise the British economy and state.
Also Me - Do I really need to vote in order to tell a socialist pressure group who is the best candidate.
Still I agree with you that its a weird thing to ask. Maybe this is the stalinism Paul Mason seems fixated on, finally coming to life! But if we have to tell a socialist pressure group, the very clear and self-evident fact that RLB is best choice for the left then we are much deeper shit than I thought.
It's not even that, though. They didn't offer us a vote on the candidates, they chose Becky and then asked us to vote on whether or not they'd made the right call.
What on earth would their plan had been if we'd said no?
It is still likely to be perceived as being 'jam tomorrow' or worse still "I want your vote so I'll say anything".
I suspect anything labelled a 'Green infrastructure project' will actually be running out of road by 2024, (no pun intended) there are too many 'elitist' backers who are pushing such schemes now and more climbing on the bandwagon, all very much in the idiom of "don't do what I do, do as I say" as they jet off somewhere, and they don't even realise they are doing more harm than good, in their efforts to look concerned.
From the 'White heat of Technology' from the mid 60's, through to the 'Northern Power House' of the 00's politicians of all kinds and persuasions have been gushing about redistribution to the North, equalising the balance between North and South, replacing past industries with new growth, etc.
Sorry it won't wash, it isn't just old men and women changing their voting habits and risking the wrath of their ancestors, many young people in the North especially after the Brexit delay and debacle, just don't trust politicians any more...full stop!
Most of those who voted Tory, for the first time in their life, actually don't really believe Boris will deliver on his promises, beyond Brexit; but if he does deliver on just a fraction, they will vote him in again. Labour is so distanced in thought as well as ideas from its past roots, it doesn't just have a mountain to climb, but has seas to swim and endless valleys to explore. Boris will have to foul up big time and similarly Labour change its ideas, to get anywhere near rebuilding the 'red wall'.
Oh my bad, I didn't know that(I never opened the email).
Yeah that is very odd and actually quite stalinist
Forgive me for not finding 'it doesn't actually matter what Labour do' to be a worthwhile point to engage with in this specific thread.
@DiseaseOfTheAge please stop calling her Becky
She's 'our Becky' and I will not.
Tbf, that's proper, communism style, one party 'democracy' popular with despots back in the 70s. One candidate, you vote yes or no, and usually if the answer was no, they would fix the result another way.
I wonder though how much this type of lack of trust in democratic processes could hurt momentum in the long term.
Unless you think there was a chance momentum members may have preferred an alternative candidate, which I doubt you do, then I think you're either being mischievous or paranoid here.
That is not what was said at all, it has to change its ideas to win back former supporters and also hope Boris fouls up!
The right response might be to ask... "change its ideas to what'"? However I suspect you are not really interested enough to ask that question, or to hear ideas?
I've spent all day asking people their ideas! Tell me
True enough. The Tories also aren't stupid and have already moved to the left economically (whilst also becoming more totalitarian) and I expect them to continue in that vein to stymie a future challenge by Labour.
Any semblance of balancing the budget will disappear in favour of spending far in excess of GDP growth (particularly in Health, Social Care, Policing and Education). Likewise the minimum wage is also being increased by an inflation busting 6.2% for 25+ and 6.5% for 21 - 24 which I expect to continue to £10+. To pay for this I can guarantee we'll see the continued increase of stealth taxes whilst cynically proclaiming that taxes are being reduced (via tiny decreases such as NI).
The Tories will essentially morph into Tony Blair's Labour government in order to leave no room for someone like Starmer; he'll end up being caught between a rock and a hard place: he can't praise Johnson for introducing Labour policies as it'd be a PR disaster, but he also can't offer an extremist divergent manifesto ala Corbyn as it won't be credible.
In one of my many arguments with tankies, I found some interesting history - Stalin told some of his people to prepare the USSR for a full free election, sending everyone in the hierarchy down to local officials into deep panic. Then a month before the dates, after reading their panicky reports, he scrapped it, changed all the eligibility rules, and made it a yes/no election with the NKVD supervising.Oh my bad, I didn't know that(I never opened the email).
Yeah that is very odd and actually quite stalinist
So what I'm saying is that Momentum is maybe more Stalinist than the man himself.
link to the source?
The point is momentum is meant to stand for democratising the party and yet they have just conducted a process I would not call democratic. I should imagine, then, some among their members being displeased with this. The point isn't that Long Bailey would have won anyhow, it is that members should have had a chance to vote for whomever.
That would be a concern for the membership. If they are concerned I think we all know they are more than capable of making themselves heard on social media. I'm not seeing much concern myself. I suspect all is actually alright and your worries on their behalf are unnecessary.
browser history is gone but it looks like this was the one: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500596?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Boring online fight:
The author, J Arch Getty was one of the first to have access to the archives when they were opened and gave the first definitive numbers of gulag prisoners and executions. Since those numbers are lower than those from some anti-communist cold-war era historians (like Robert Conquest), he gets cited by tankies a lot. It was fun when I looked at his paper, figured out the incarceration rate in late 30s USSR was double that of the US today, and was told by the same tankies that he is a Nazi apologist. This is the gulag paper if you're interested - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2166597?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents
I really don't get the point in a pressure group polling its members to find out who to recommend its members should vote for.
The point is momentum is meant to stand for democratising the party and yet they have just conducted a process I would not democratic. I should imagine, then, some among their members being displeased with this. The point isn't that Long Bailey would have won anyhow, it is that members should have had a chance to vote for whomever. If she is overwhelmingly
I don't know if it is a concern for sure. That's why my original post started with, "I wonder.."
Also since when have things only being factual if they are on twitter?
RedChip, my friend, are you trying to have me believe that significant numbers of momentum members could be upset by this but their voices would not be heard on twitter?
Momentum exist to push a certain agenda. If Momentum members voted for Philips then they'd be in a ridiculous situation wouldn't they? It'd be completely counter productive to their objectives.
Momentum aren't saying that all organisations should be democratic as far as I'm aware so I don't see it as an issue of hypocrisy.
I can’t fathom why so many Labour members are happy to prioritise their ideological agenda in favour of actually getting into power. These aren’t stupid people I’m talking about either. Long-Bailey is never getting a Labour government into power.
Starmer will be getting my vote. Rayner for Deputy. Nandy is the only other remotely impressive candidate running for leadership.
I fear the outcome of this leadership race could finish the party for good.
Starmer will be getting my vote. Rayner for Deputy. Nandy is the only other remotely impressive candidate running for leadership.
I fear the outcome of this leadership race could finish the party for good.
If compaigning for democratisation whilst not fully or properly practising it yourself isn't a textbook definition of hypocrisy, then what is?
But Corbyn won the argument?
Aye, I think it is possible some are but are silent to avoid uttering views not in sync with the majority. Guardian for example reported some displeasure on this.
@PedroMendez It is in the paper I linked. Pages 12-15 (29-32 according to the printed numbers)
If they campaigned for the labour party to disband does that mean they'd have to disband themselves first or be hypocrites?
If they campaigned for labour to sack it's leader do they have to sack their own leader first?
Very possible that some are, in fact certain, I would say! Whilst not remotely possible that they constitute anything near a meaningful number. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously.
Sorry, but those comparisons are a bit silly.
Why
Last edited:
I invite you to keep trying to find things. It sounds a relatively harmless use of your time.
Because people who believe in the social democraric policies that Corbyn offered, and Long Bailey will build on, view centre ground politics/Blairism as the antithesis of their ideals.
Better to fight for something you believe in and lose, than trade your beliefs in the hope of 'winning'. Because it wouldn't be winning to the left because a centrist party wouldn't pursue the type of change they want in the country.
I full appreciate that standpoint, but agree with you that Long Bailey is highly unlikely to win an election because England is a very conservative country, unfortunately (Labour lost Scotland and Wales is split). The only hope is that in 5 years the political landacape is different, we'll know the realities of Brexit and what a Boris government means etc.
To be honest I'm going to stick my head in the sand and try to avoid what i can for the next few years. The last few have been draining keeping involved in it.
I don't think this is a terribly unfair description of my views. As I've said before, I don't see how winning on a platform that doesn't involve drastic changes regarding carbon emissions is really a win. Nor do I think it possible to win without promising those changes given the electoral situation.