Who will be the next Labour leader?

[Smokeandsteam]

I guess my question is how should those of us outside the Labour Party relate to it?

That’s a really good question. One I’m actively thinking about and I’m sure others are too

 

[Shechemite]

Dunno but I could see something like the IWCA developing (possibly within or outside the Labour Party)

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Based on this alone, she would be my first preference:

Newly-elected Jewish MP defends saying Nazis should get ‘heads kicked in’

 

[brogdale]

This may help.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Dunno but I could see something like the IWCA developing (possibly within or outside the Labour Party)

Yes. Or even the IWCA....

 

[Pickman's model]

Dunno but I could see something like the IWCA developing (possibly within or outside the Labour Party)

You're very optimistic

 

[Smokeandsteam]

You're very optimistic

Maybe. But the first question is a simple one: Is there now an urgent need, a top priority, for as much resource as possible to be focussed on the estates and the workplaces? To begin a rebuild. To shift from social media and party games and towards people as they are. The answer is yes.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe. But the first question is a simple one: Is there now an urgent need, a top priority, for as much resource as possible to be focussed on the estates and the workplaces? To begin a rebuild. To shift from social media and party games and towards people as they are. The answer is yes.

I think it very optimistic to anticipate such a thing coming out of the Labour Party or that milieu, out of momentum. So much left wing effort has gone into reclaiming the Labour Party I'd be very surprised if much from that tendency would go into building a movement as you describe

 

[Shechemite]

Maybe. But the first question is a simple one: Is there now an urgent need, a top priority, for as much resource as possible to be focussed on the estates and the workplaces? To begin a rebuild. To shift from social media and party games and towards people as they are. The answer is yes.

There’s been an urgent need for a while to be fair.

We’ve already had this debate.

 

[Shechemite]

You're very optimistic

No hope no fear

What’s the latin for that?

 

[YouSir]

I think it very optimistic to anticipate such a thing coming out of the Labour Party or that milieu, out of momentum. So much left wing effort has gone into reclaiming the Labour Party I'd be very surprised if much from that tendency would go into building a movement as you describe

I'm a bit more optimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people joined up for/because of Corbyn, the popular idea of the Lefty activist in that represents a relatively tiny portion of the whole compared to the bulk of the membership. Momentum isn't that big in itself, the active part of it is smaller by far. Most of the new members who voted for the leader, did a bit of campaigning etc are just as likely to see being involved in and around their communities in a practical way as a path forward as anything. Sure, half of my family signed up to support the Leftward shift but they're all far more involved in day to day real world stuff than they are party political wrangling.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I think it very optimistic to anticipate such a thing coming out of the Labour Party or that milieu, out of momentum. So much left wing effort has gone into reclaiming the Labour Party I'd be very surprised if much from that tendency would go into building a movement as you describe

I think you are probably right, but let’s see. Bedlam’s question was, to be fair, about those of us outside of Labour. And to be equally fair I probably muddied the waters with my answer. I’m hoping the next labour leader will prioritise it but I’m not expecting they will

 

[two sheds]

Anyone linked to this on Jess Phillips showing where her sympathies lie on election night?

https://videos.files.wordpress.com/KdOJZxRv/jp-ge-night_dvd.mp4

From Skwawkbox not sure whether links to that are acceptable.

 

[Humberto]

Someone who isn't afraid to hit because they might hit back.

 

[Shechemite]

Someone who isn't afraid to hit because they might hit back.

Prescott?

 

[Humberto]

Prescott?

noice

 

[Dogsauce]

Someone with a bit of fight in them, that can passionately defend policy. Rayner would be better than RLB from the little I’ve seem of both, their joint ticket is the wrong way around.

 

[Serge Forward]

I'm a bit more optimistic. Hundreds of thousands of people joined up for/because of Corbyn, the popular idea of the Lefty activist in that represents a relatively tiny portion of the whole compared to the bulk of the membership. Momentum isn't that big in itself, the active part of it is smaller by far. Most of the new members who voted for the leader, did a bit of campaigning etc are just as likely to see being involved in and around their communities in a practical way as a path forward as anything. Sure, half of my family signed up to support the Leftward shift but they're all far more involved in day to day real world stuff than they are party political wrangling.

Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.

 

[ska invita]

Of course
at self

#Anj&Bec
awaits

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

Exactly representation. Fine if you are going to argue for that do so but then let's be clear you are arguing against socialism - workers control of the means of production, not state control, not party control, workers.

As for the leader of the LP needing to do the above to act like a CEO, well make an argument for that need. As Puddy_Tat points the political consensus denies Attlee of many of the attributes that people on this thread have stated the leader of the LP needs (and on the other hand Gaitskell is often given such attributes, the best PM Britian never had).

Are you also going to argue that business need CEOs and senior management teams? Against workers control? Against economic democracy?
When unions first formed they did not have general secretaries and you had workers control of disputes. The Paris Commune, the Russian revolution, the Spanish Revolution these occurred and succeeded based on people organising together via direct democracy not because the "right" leader was there.

 

[mauvais]

Exactly representation. Fine if you are going to argue for that do so but then let's be clear you are arguing against socialism - workers control of the means of production, not state control, not party control, workers.

No. It need make no difference. Not representation like representative democracy, representation like spokesperson. It need do nothing for controlling what happens beneath.

As for the leader of the LP needing to do the above to act like a CEO, well make an argument for that need. As Puddy_Tat points the political consensus denies Attlee of many of the attributes that people on this thread have stated the leader of the LP needs (and on the other hand Gaitskell is often given such attributes, the best PM Britian never had).

It's the interface between whatever the party actually does and the form that the electorate expects. If you think you can move the Overton window so massively that something else, some other leadership model, becomes palatable, then knock yourself out but until then we're stuck with terms like 'statesmanlike'. The exact requirement is hard to define because it's of its time and relative to other offerings, not independent, but nonetheless it exists.

Are you also going to argue that business need CEOs and senior management teams? Against workers control? Against economic democracy?
When unions first formed they did not have general secretaries and you had workers control of disputes. The Paris Commune, the Russian revolution, the Spanish Revolution these occurred and succeeded based on people organising together via direct democracy not because the "right" leader was there.

Yeees, but all of these things ultimately did have leaders. I'm not sufficiently qualified in history to comment on what exactly they did or didn't bring, what would have happened without them, but it's largely immaterial to this argument which goes back to the 'interface' point above. However there is a key purpose to movement leaders beyond that which is to shape and channel other people's energies. That doesn't mean the activities wouldn't happen without them, that the workers wouldn't organise and carry out their actions, but it might mean that the timing is coordinated for maximum possible effect, or that disparate groups are brought together for practical gain. It may not substantively alter what is actually done.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.

And even if they do it will be difficult to abandon the top down behaviour they've worked within for years

 

[Mr Moose]

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.

It’s not only businesses that have leaders and the qualities of good leaders are not simply in opposition to what the led want. I would say Len is a confident and charismatic leader. He has the confidence to speak and articulate what he believes in and what his union stands for. That’s all I mean by those qualities. Not all of us have it, most MPs don’t and many people who do are mendacious and self-serving. So choose well. If Labour chooses someone who is not quick of wit and personable this will be ruthlessly exposed.

I don’t disagree with your point about how workers make gains for a moment. I’m interested to know how you think the leader of the Labour Party should articulate that.

 

[Shechemite]

Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.

And even if they do it will be difficult to abandon the top down behaviour they've worked within for years

Fuck em then. Work with people who aren’t wankers

 

[SpackleFrog]

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.

No, you're misunderstanding gambling.

No bet is a sure fire bet or it wouldn't be a bet. You take a risk which is your stake in search of a reward which is your payout. 5/1 represents good value in terms of risk/reward because it was priced poorly by the bookies. Now that it is 6/4 whatever your stake/risk is it pays out less but the risk is the same.

Additionally if you can't afford to stake much (and you should never risk more than you can afford) the reward becomes negligible for the risk - if I risk a tenner at 5/1 the possible reward is 50 quid which is a night out or a weeks shopping but 15 quid is a cheap round of drinks so I might as well just put the tenner towards the drinks and not bother.

It's similar to poker - what risk you take and how you play has to be influenced by what is available to win. No one makes a big bet or a risky bluff call to win a tiny pot.

 

[kabbes]

If you want to work around having a leader, you do have to compensate for the positive attributes of group development and effectiveness that a good leader can bring. There’s a lot of studies that show how leadership can be transformational. It’s not necessary or sufficient for group effectiveness but removing it does leave a hole you need to fill by other means.

it also seems that humans left to their own devices in groups will pretty much always produce a leader unless systems are in place to disrupt it. So you have to deal with that too.

 

[redsquirrel]

Yeees, but all of these things ultimately did have leaders. I'm not sufficiently qualified in history to comment on what exactly they did or didn't bring, what would have happened without them, but it's largely immaterial to this argument which goes back to the 'interface' point above.

First, not all business do have leaders, not all institutions have had CEOs. Workers co-ops still exist, many groups work on delegate democracy. Even those institutions that have had some type of leader the nature of the leader has changed remarkably over the years, university vice-chancellors today are very different from what they were 25 years ago, the role of the headteacher has significantly altered, in both cases the marketisation of the sector has created the type of CEO "leadership" now seen. Even in political parties the role of leader has changed.

It's the interface between whatever the party actually does and the form that the electorate expects. If you think you can move the Overton window so massively that something else, some other leadership model, becomes palatable, then knock yourself out but until then we're stuck with terms like 'statesmanlike'.

It’s not only businesses that have leaders and the qualities of good leaders are not simply in opposition to what the led want. I would say Len is a confident and charismatic leader. He has the confidence to speak and articulate what he believes in and what his union stands for. That’s all I mean by those qualities. Not all of us have it, most MPs don’t and many people who do are mendacious and self-serving. So choose well. If Labour chooses someone who is not quick of wit and personable this will be ruthlessly exposed

I'm sorry but its pretty laughable to claim to subscribe to a political philosophy who's aim is to change the political economy of the world via ensuring workers control, while insisting that the organisation you see as necessary to being about those changes be built around an organisational form that acts against member/worker control. If you don't even have the confidence to support direct democracy in the organisation(s) that you posit is key to bringing improvements to workers then how do you expect to build workers control in the workplace, in communities etc? Or are you retreating from socialism to support a (weak) social democracy? (There's a nice parallel here to Habermas' European people, the construction of a group via anti-democratic top down imposition).

As I've said before this is the key distinction - between those of us that trust in the workers and those that don't. For me as a communist change can only be brought about by the workers, and that therefore we need to take every opportunity to increase workers control, direct democracy and economic democracy. Trying to build socialism from the top down has failed every time.

 

[mauvais]

You're still seeing what you want or expect to see rather than what's there.

 

[redsquirrel]

What part is incorrect? You've argued that some type of party is necessary to bring about the changes you want. You've argued against workers control of their communities.

I'm not sure whether you'd consider yourself a socialist, a social democrat or just a left liberal but your politics mirrors that of the Webbs, top-down, the party leading the elect to the light.

 

[YouSir]

Nah. The advent of Corbyn and Momentum has hauled loads of active people, previously involved in all sorts of activity, into the dead end of Labourism and parliamentary bullshit. Building a culture of resistance in the communities, workplaces and on the streets has sadly been relegated and left to a rump of those in favour of organising from below. I don’t expect many to return after their parliamentarist activity.

Hundreds of thousands of people signed up, a lot of whom hadn't been involved in anything before or who didn't (maybe still don't) view their involvement as political 'action' so much as just doing stuff in their community - although both build the same networks. Some will do one thing, others will do another, blanket pessimism like yours there is meaningless.