Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Artaxerxes]

Anyone except Corbyn

If Abbott, Jess Phillips, Chukka or Burnham get the top job I'm not voting Labour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not this shit again. Unless you have a very close knowledge of potential candidates you don't really know much about them. Most of us here don't. We just know tittle tattle.

But what we do know is that JC has no authority or vision and is thoroughly exposed in the eyes of the public. The gamble that he will transform the party is just that.

I would prefer a unifier, someone who can unite the party under the current policy direction, but also galvanise the imagination. That has to be someone with a decent voting record. Starmer perhaps, but I don't know anything more about him than that, if he is a potential leader, orator, or Blairite clown. So please, our job is not to name the next leader, like we have a clue. But Jeremy should know. Sadly he may even think it's him.

Starmer is quasi-Blairite. He believes in all that stuff about how capitalism can be made to benefit social democracy - stuff that Blair's tenure proved to be waffle and nonsense. Plus, he's not well-liked, having been parachuted into Frank Dobson's VERY safe seat at Holborn and St Pancras.

Pretty much any way you turn, most of those who might possibly be suitable leadership material are tainted - not in the media's eyes, I hasten to add, but in the eyes of the politically-interested public - and would receive the same sort of dismissal as Cooper, Kendall and Burnham did.

I'm not a Corbyn evangelist, and it may very well be that with Corbyn leading the party, 2020 is already a lost cause. What people need to acknowledge is that actually, under ANY leader, 2020 is a lost cause. The Maquis/"moderates" have made sure of that with the way they've destabilised the PLP and wound up the constituency parties and local branches.

 

[hash tag]

God forbid, is it possible Blair is looking to come back. After years of seemingly doing very little, he seems to be all over the place lately?

 

[nuffsaid]

God forbid, is it possible Blair is looking to come back. After years of seemingly doing very little, he seems to be all over the place lately?

He was on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday - he's just putting his head above the parapet to get publicity for his knew 'centre' think-tank he's launching. He mentioned he was not going back into front-line politics, but wants to provide a 'space' for centre politics thinking. He'd rather influence from no-mans-land right now.

 

[Pickman's model]

He was on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday - he's just putting his head above the parapet to get publicity for his knew 'centre' think-tank he's launching. He mentioned he was not going back into front-line politics, but wants to provide a 'space' for centre politics thinking. He'd rather influence from no-mans-land right now.

 

[Libertad]

On the run to the outside of everything.

 

[Pickman's model]

God forbid, is it possible Blair is looking to come back. After years of seemingly doing very little, he seems to be all over the place lately?

He has to come back so he can fuck off again

 

[Mr Moose]

On the run to the outside of everything.

They definitely came to a secret understanding.

 

[Mr Moose]

Starmer is quasi-Blairite. He believes in all that stuff about how capitalism can be made to benefit social democracy - stuff that Blair's tenure proved to be waffle and nonsense. Plus, he's not well-liked, having been parachuted into Frank Dobson's VERY safe seat at Holborn and St Pancras.

Pretty much any way you turn, most of those who might possibly be suitable leadership material are tainted - not in the media's eyes, I hasten to add, but in the eyes of the politically-interested public - and would receive the same sort of dismissal as Cooper, Kendall and Burnham did.

I'm not a Corbyn evangelist, and it may very well be that with Corbyn leading the party, 2020 is already a lost cause. What people need to acknowledge is that actually, under ANY leader, 2020 is a lost cause. The Maquis/"moderates" have made sure of that with the way they've destabilised the PLP and wound up the constituency parties and local branches.

I agree with much of what you say. There is a very narrow margin for a leader to unify without slipping back to past errors. But even Corbyn is looking for Capitalism to thrive and provide. Labour is not going to offer other than regulation and mediation of the effects. It needs to convince that it can.

 

[Mr Moose]

So the memership is not qualified to choose the leader of the party, only the PLP, is that what you're saying?



Wow. You do know that the membership elects the leader, right?



Well we know how he votes and what he supports so that should be something to go on.

That's what hustings are for and there are plenty of people, unionists, writers, activists, former Labour 'bigwigs' who can identify, mentor and put forward the candidates with leadership potential, not just the potential to agree with you. It would be a good change to lower the threshold for nominations and I hope it happens.

 

[mikey mikey]

That's what hustings are for and there are plenty of people, unionists, writers, activists, former Labour 'bigwigs' who can identify, mentor and put forward the candidates with leadership potential, not just the potential to agree with you. It would be a good change to lower the threshold for nominations and I hope it happens.

I agree with you for the most part. I especially agree with your wish to lower the threshold for nominations. I would add, however that the role and nature of the hustings are undergoing radical change with the increasingly significant role in modern forms of communication. At one time the average member was much less likely to be able to find out for themselves exactly how an MP voted, what political group they belong to, bios, their financial backers etc.

 

[DotCommunist]

corbyn got on the ticket as a token lefty, he was never expected to win to start with. All sections voted him in but the three quidders surge has been well cut off now. If they seek to depose St J there is no way in hell anyone left of owen smith is on the ticket- except corbyn because his right to be auto included was decided in court (really a good look for a political party was that fucking incident) and he would win again.

 

[mikey mikey]

really a good look for a political party was that fucking incident

Acceptable losses. Tony said it himself: he would rather have a Tory government than a Labour Left one. Not on practical grounds, but ideological grounds. From what I can gather, the priorities are: 1) Prevent the return of a social democratic government at all costs. 2) Achieve power 3) Look like a liberal while carrying out "wet" Tory policies.

 

[treelover]

Starmer is quasi-Blairite. He believes in all that stuff about how capitalism can be made to benefit social democracy - stuff that Blair's tenure proved to be waffle and nonsense. Plus, he's not well-liked, having been parachuted into Frank Dobson's VERY safe seat at Holborn and St Pancras.

Pretty much any way you turn, most of those who might possibly be suitable leadership material are tainted - not in the media's eyes, I hasten to add, but in the eyes of the politically-interested public - and would receive the same sort of dismissal as Cooper, Kendall and Burnham did.

I'm not a Corbyn evangelist, and it may very well be that with Corbyn leading the party, 2020 is already a lost cause. What people need to acknowledge is that actually, under ANY leader, 2020 is a lost cause. The Maquis/"moderates" have made sure of that with the way they've destabilised the PLP and wound up the constituency parties and local branches.

The former Marxist Starmer's last act as Director of Public Prosecutions was to recommend a maximum tariff of ten years of benefit fraud(not sure if that was for organised fraud, etc) that is more than some violent crime sentences.

 

[redsquirrel]

I agree with much of what you say. There is a very narrow margin for a leader to unify without slipping back to past errors. But even Corbyn is looking for Capitalism to thrive and provide. Labour is not going to offer other than regulation and mediation of the effects. It needs to convince that it can.

A week ago you were arguing that Corbyn needed to go because he was blocking a move to the left, now this. So you're admitting that you were talking rubbish last week?

 

[Mr Moose]

A week ago you were arguing that Corbyn needed to go because he was blocking a move to the left, now this. So you're admitting that you were talking rubbish last week?

I'm not saying it's beyond me to talk rubbish, but you'd have to quote it.

I think I've always been clear that I think Labour's policies are ok, but Jeremy can't deliver because he doesn't have a hope of convincing the public. He can't because his stance is hopelessly confused for a statesman. He is therefore holding Labour back electorally. Whether he is making progress towards the party emerging as a socialist party in any sense of the word I also doubt.

As you know I am not convinced an eviscerated LP reborn under Corbyn would go anywhere anyway. Get rid of the liberalism in the PLP you merely the have to then deal with how deep it runs in the voters, with their flexible working arrangements, self employment and small businesses, let alone their nationalism, if you want to get enough votes to govern that is.

I hope there is a narrow window for a left inclined leader, who has the leadership ability and can insist on discipline across the party behind a decent anti-austerity agenda.

 

[Pickman's model]

The former Marxist Starmer's last act as Director of Public Prosecutions was to recommend a maximum tariff of ten years of benefit fraud(not sure if that was for organised fraud, etc) that is more than some violent crime sentences.

you don't like socialists, do you?

let's see your evidence of his 'former marxis[m]'

 

[Mr Moose]

The former Marxist Starmer's last act as Director of Public Prosecutions was to recommend a maximum tariff of ten years of benefit fraud(not sure if that was for organised fraud, etc) that is more than some violent crime sentences.

Harsh.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm not saying it's beyond me to talk rubbish, but you'd have to quote it.

Sorry it was a whole three weeks ago

It's tactics in the end. I think Corbyn is holding up left wing advancement in the party because he makes it look unattractive and fey. Keeping him is like telling Labour voters that the members think they are wrong about most things.

I don't believe a right wing coup would succeed in any way but superficially. The membership have the upper hand.

I hope there is a narrow window for a left inclined leader, who has the leadership ability and can insist on discipline across the party behind a decent anti-austerity agenda.

So despite admitting that you're ignorant of internal Labour politics and can't name who this individual is, despite the fact that people have repeatedly outlined reasons why this is not possible (summarised here) you'll just keep on repeating this same bollocks.

 

[Mr Moose]

Sorry it was a whole three weeks ago

So despite admitting that you're ignorant of internal Labour politics and can't name who this individual is, despite the fact that people have repeatedly outlined reasons why this is not possible (summarised here) you'll just keep on repeating this same bollocks.

Well yes, if that's alright with you I will, thanks.

 

[mikey mikey]

I think "little people" were supposed to accept Kier Starmer is "left inclined". Just as they weren't supposed to know about Starmers record. Hopefully these pesky facts will be buried in a hundred headlines and the sites that share such details wil be either closed or dubbed "fake news".

 

[treelover]

At the NEC meeting, MP Ian Lavery, the party’s election coordinator, gave a presentation about the party’s local election campaign effort, saying the slogan would be: “Standing up for you.”

The party, he said, would be making five pledges:

• To invest in Britain.
• To offer better health and social care.
• To create educational opportunities for all.
• To create safer neighbourhoods.
• And to provide affordable homes, including more new-build council housing.

Labour membership expected to fall below half a million

New five pledges, sound good to me,

 

[killer b]

Get 'em carved on a bit of rock.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

New five pledges, sound good to me,

So this was what we were fighting for?

Forward to a bright socialist future comrades

 

[Bakunin]

he's just putting his head above the parapet

 

[Sprocket.]

New five pledges, sound good to me,

These shouldn't have to be pledges, these should be accepted basic policy.
Bah.

 

[Mr Moose]

New five pledges, sound good to me,

Uninspiring though. Most will feel they are the basic job of Government. If you don't feel Labour will do them best you won't vote for them.

Labour needs to work more on its reason for being and what should set it apart. It needs new values more than bland policy. The policy can follow. Better to campaign like so,

We favour solutions in health, care and education that work for everybody and leave no one behind.
We protect our beautiful country so all can enjoy it.
We are welcoming and fair to strangers in need.
We believe the state should not intrude upon you beyond its mandate.
We seek to promote the opportunities of technological change to benefit all.
We believe in democracy and seek to mediate concentrations of power.

 

[nuffsaid]

A little lengthy for an epitaph.

The pledges above I mean.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Meaningless. The council housing bit is the only thing that approaches an actual policy or that differentiates them from the Tories and Lib Dems.

 

[DotCommunist]

'including' doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence either. Sounds like private-public joint effort where most of the area would be lower cost private rental and a few token council houses.