Who will be the next Labour leader?
- Thread starter Don Troooomp
- Start date
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
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.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
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.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Poor
- British
- American
- Irish
- Australian
- French
- Italian
- Spanish
- Scottish
- Scandinavian
- Latin American
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
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
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?
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?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
These are exactly the type of buzzwords that are used for CEOs. What do you actually mean by any of these words?
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
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
This Machine Kills Progressives
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.
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
Working Class First
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
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
Arsed
I'll use my union vote but here I am, yet again sullied and tainted by participating in the labour machine. Fucks sake.
mauvais
on reddit or something
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.
I actually wish I could use mine, if it existed, but PCS are civil service (obviously!
) and unaffiliated, so whatevs.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
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.
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
on reddit or something
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.
Treacle Toes
Time
I like Angela Rayner. She's not on the list.
Treacle Toes
Time
I don't think i've even noticed her before. Has she done much interview wise recently?
Last edited:
mauvais
on reddit or something
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
Working Class First
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
Be the sun and all will see you
For the benefit of Labour or the Left?
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Neither. For people
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
I guess my question is how should those of us outside the Labour Party relate to it?
Similar threads
- Poll
