Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Who will be the next Labour leader?

Who will replace Corbyn?

  • Total voters
    161
kebabking said:
Indeed - I take it far more as being shorthand/talismanic than being specific - it's saying, or not, i will go to any lengths to protect you.

its quite possible that someone without Corbyns' baggage could have a discussion about whether nukes provide for better defence than conventional systems, or other political/diplomatic/economic systems, but they'd need something of a clean sheet, and for it to be fairly clear in the public/media mind that it was a technical discussion, not some moral crusade by a hippy/Hamas supporter.
Click to expand...

Can I clarify?

Your not actually saying someone opposing nukes is a Hamas supporter?

On Technical discussion. Not everyone is a pacifist. But morality does come into violent conflict. Its seen as immoral to use say chemical weapons. This does not make one a "hippy".
 
belboid said:
Did you actually bother reading the whole piece?

It’s an opening piece, not an entire manifesto, but it is addressing all the things you are complaining about. Why deliberately misrepresenting it/her?
Click to expand...

I did read it. I have made two criticisms. Firstly, her reference to the ‘socialist programme’. There isn’t one. Secondly, ‘standing beside’ and supporting is not the same as a worked out plan to systematically direct the Party’s membership and resources into rebuilding and active work to assist in the strengthening of non state institutions. I want to vote for a candidate who is serious about the work.

Your point about it being an opening piece is fair, but so is commenting on it. There I s no misrepresentation here
 
Last edited:
A problem with the Labour party ( from what I've seen in Lambeth) is that once one is in it occupies all ones time.

A couple of really good community activists I know in Lambeth joined Labour party due to Corbyn.

I can fully understand.

Being involved in local community groups its frustrating when it feels like banging head against the wall of the New Labour adminstration in Lambeth.

Corbyn meant that people joined local Labour party to try to change the structures that meant community minded people were no longer banging there heads against the wall. But helping to make policy and run services in a supportive and colaborative way with the local Labour administration. A rational imo reaction to years of community work where the New Labour adminstration treat one with little more than bare toleration at times contempt.

But it meant that my two friends ended up spending all their time in local Labour party meetings opposing the entrenched New Labour lot. With therefore no time for community issues.

Its a real problem. To make the Labour party relevant to ordinary locals needs such a total transformation of the party Im sadly feel it might not happen. Despite the best efforts of my friends.

The leadership campaign is not going to go into the local issues. Its going to be about whether a candidate is "patriotic".
 
Last edited:
Gramsci said:
...The leadership campaign is not going to go into the local issues. Its going to be about whether a candidate is "patriotic".
Click to expand...

It's pretty obviously going to be about national issues, given that it's a national position. I rather doubt you'd be interested in the candidates views on the B4194, train services from Worcester Parkway and Wychavons' Local Housing Plan.
 
kebabking said:
It's pretty obviously going to be about national issues, given that it's a national position. I rather doubt you'd be interested in the candidates views on the B4194, train services from Worcester Parkway and Wychavons' Local Housing Plan.
Click to expand...

I thought a major criticism was that the Labour party was distant from local bread and butter concerns?
 
Cerv said:
looking at the timeline that’s been announced this week, why is it so late?
with local elections only one month later, I’d have thought that they’d want the new leadership to be in place earlier with a bit more time to get things going for the campaign.
Click to expand...
Good point.
& In London the Mayoral & GLA elections will take place just one month after the announcement of the new leader. Bad enough, but even worse when you consider that Labour’s GLA constituency candidates are still not yet selected, having been delayed for umpteen reasons inc. the GE. As far as I can tell, the tories in my constituency (Croydon & Sutton) had their candidate in place back in March 2019,giving them plenty of time to organise and campaign.

Maybe what they’re saying about the LP being a shambles internally explains all this?
 
Gramsci said:
To make the Labour party relevant to ordinary locals needs such a total transformation of the party Im sadly feel it might not happen. Despite the best efforts of my friends.
Click to expand...

ultimately, the 'new labour' / blairite / progress types have had it their way since the mid 90s. they mostly seem determined to hang on to what power they have got - the brief arc of TInGe nationally wasn't really great, and while a few councillors have defected to the limp dems or whatever, most have stayed put.

the party structure is, as far as i can tell, not one where large swathes of the party can be 'purged' that easily, and there's the old argument about having them inside the tent pissing out.

although quite frankly a lot of them seem to have been inside the tent and pissing all over the place since corbyn was elected leader.

Gramsci said:
I thought a major criticism was that the Labour party was distant from local bread and butter concerns?
Click to expand...

i think it can be, but not sure anyone is going to win a national party leadership contest by getting too deeply in to specific local things.
 
Puddy_Tat said:
ultimately, the 'new labour' / blairite / progress types have had it their way since the mid 90s. they mostly seem determined to hang on to what power they have got - the brief arc of TInGe nationally wasn't really great, and while a few councillors have defected to the limp dems or whatever, most have stayed put.

the party structure is, as far as i can tell, not one where large swathes of the party can be 'purged' that easily, and there's the old argument about having them inside the tent pissing out.

although quite frankly a lot of them seem to have been inside the tent and pissing all over the place since corbyn was elected leader.



i think it can be, but not sure anyone is going to win a national party leadership contest by getting too deeply in to specific local things.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that a major criticism of the Labour party is that it has lost touch with what should be its natural constituency.

Not saying a national leadership should know all about specific things in small areas.

But that a criticism of the party is that its not been seen to be actively involved in local communities. Building up support in this way.

I'm in inner London but , forgive me If I'm wrong , but was that not a major reason given for the gradual loss of support for Labour party up North?

My own experience of inner London is that the Labour vote held up but that the local Blairite New Labour Council isn't liked in general.
 
Gramsci said:
But that a criticism of the party is that its not been seen to be actively involved in local communities. Building up support in this way.

I'm in inner London but , forgive me If I'm wrong , but was that not a major reason given for the gradual loss of support for Labour party up North?
Click to expand...

i'm not all that sure it ever was in a big way. through trade unions yes, but local communities - dunno. obviously will vary from one place to another.

locally here (labour party sometimes distant second to the tories in general elections, now have about 3 local councillors which they consider to be quite a big achievement) they do occasional things like campaigning things aimed at train commuters, going out in to the community on organised litter picking things which always strikes me as a bit hmm - yes the local tory council is fairly crap at these things, but feels too close to scabbing for comfort where i'm sitting.
 
Gramsci said:
I heard her being interviewed this morning on the Today Programme.

From what I'm remember the interview went like this.

Interviewer asked her if she was patriotic and therefore would be prepared to push the button for nuclear missiles launch

This apparently for the Today Programme interviewer was how to measure if a candidate seeking to be a future PM is "patriotic".

In other words one is proper patriot if one is prepared to support Mutually Assured Destruction.

That MAD is the litmus test for " patriotism" is disgusting imo.

I feel for what imo is decent person like RLB when faced with this bollox. You can't win.

As much as Corbyn is criticised here any person mildly left is going to get a hard time in a country like this if they are putting themselves for leader of Labour party. That is what felt when I heard the interview.

Personally when I heard the Today interviewer questioning a left of centre politician in this way I wonder why Boris and his lot have such a problem with the Today programme.
Click to expand...

I have never heard ANYONE who wants to be PM answer that question in a satisfactory manner.. The correct answer is (IMO) "I've put a lot of thought into my letter to the submarine Commander.
 
gosub said:
I have never heard ANYONE who wants to be PM answer that question in a satisfactory manner.. The correct answer is (IMO) "I've put a lot of thought into my letter to the submarine Commander.
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons are part of this country’s arsenal and as such, if I were PM, I cannot rule out their use. But we have not needed to use them in the 70 or so years we have had them and every year as our knowledge of the fragile nature of the environment becomes more apparent and our commitment to human rights across the world greater, the circumstances in which they could be used become ever more extreme and unlikely. We would be better off asking whether they represent the best way of defending our country rather than posing this yes/no question as a proxy. If I become Prime Minister this is a matter Parliament will consider as a priority.
 
Mr Moose said:
Nuclear weapons are part of this country’s arsenal and as such, if I were PM, I cannot rule out their use. But we have not needed to use them in the 70 or so years we have had them and every year as our knowledge of the fragile nature of the environment becomes more apparent and our commitment to human rights across the world greater, the circumstances in which they could be used become ever more extreme and unlikely. We would be better off asking whether they represent the best way of defending our country rather than posing this yes/no question as a proxy. If I become Prime Minister this is a matter Parliament will consider as a priority.
Click to expand...

"So, stop being evasive and just answer the question. Would you use them?"

<repeated ad infinitum until you give the answer they want which is "yes"

or "no" in which case they've got you with the mad hippy peacenik label>
 
two sheds said:
"So, stop being evasive and just answer the question. Would you use them?"

<repeated ad infinitum until you give the answer they want which is "yes"

or "no" in which case they've got you with the mad hippy peacenik label>
Click to expand...

Nah, there's a way that works - you simply go on the attack: you say 'i'm sorry Martha, but I am simply not prepared to discuss with you - and through you anyone who might wish us harm - the most sensitive details of the United Kingdom's future nuclear weapons posture'.

It helps however if you've not spent your life on anti-nuclear demo's, otherwise the ambiguity never really sticks.
 
Mr Moose said:
Nuclear weapons are part of this country’s arsenal and as such, if I were PM, I cannot rule out their use. But we have not needed to use them in the 70 or so years we have had them and every year as our knowledge of the fragile nature of the environment becomes more apparent and our commitment to human rights across the world greater, the circumstances in which they could be used become ever more extreme and unlikely. We would be better off asking whether they represent the best way of defending our country rather than posing this yes/no question as a proxy. If I become Prime Minister this is a matter Parliament will consider as a priority.
Click to expand...
Beautiful. But it's not the "soundbite answer" the Today Programme seems to demand.
 
kebabking said:
Nah, there's a way that works - you simply go on the attack: you say 'i'm sorry Martha, but I am simply not prepared to discuss with you - and through you anyone who might wish us harm - the most sensitive details of the United Kingdom's future nuclear weapons posture'.

It helps however if you've not spent your life on anti-nuclear demo's, otherwise the ambiguity never really sticks.
Click to expand...
I'd better not stand for the Leadership then! :hmm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fez909
Positives about the next Labour government
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
8K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
frogwoman
  • Poll
What is the first serious Labour scandal gonna be?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
9K
rasputin
R
scifisam
What MIGHT be better under Labour this time round? (Try to be positive)
Replies
27
Views
822
Epona
Epona
hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
962
Fedayn
Fedayn
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
288
Humberto
Humberto
Back
Top Bottom