Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Who will be the next Labour leader?

Who will replace Corbyn?


  • Total voters
    161
Ah! Well. They're all going to vote Long-Bailey anyway, even the people who voted against endorsing her were mostly doing it to object to being only offered one option. There's no-one else in the running.
 
I agree with your characterisation of the candidates. It’s a seriously low quality field.
I think theres a question as to Why the field is so shit.
David Graeber is probably right with this - basically they're all tainted by the culture of managerial politics a la Blair:
Most sitting Labour MPs had begun as Labour youth activists themselves, just as most centrist political journalists had begun their careers as leftists, even revolutionaries, of one sort or another. But they had also risen through the ranks of Blair’s machine at a time when advancement was largely based on willingness to sacrifice one’s youthful ideals. They had become the very people they would have once despised as sell-outs.
Id hope for a bit more of a culture change in maybe 10 years time.
 
Unless, of course, the membership is so detached from the general public's views, that they keep selecting MPs and electing leaders that will never bring them back into government.

That doesn’t immediately tell you who the membership should then select, given that centrists are about as popular with the voters as norovirus on a cruise ship.

The best that you can do is try to propose honest individuals who can demonstrate they hold the principles the members largely support. If the general public doesn’t like it, then they don’t.

But that’s not the same as being politically naive, for example holding onto a leader way after his sell by date or not listening to the public and trying to find the intersections.
 
That doesn’t immediately tell you who the membership should then select, given that centrists are about as popular with the voters as norovirus on a cruise ship.

What evidence is there of that?

The best that you can do is try to propose honest individuals who can demonstrate they hold the principles the members largely support. If the general public doesn’t like it, then they don’t.

Great, so I get to live out the rest of my life under Tory governments.

.
 
Only vaguely possible if Labour recruit working class members especially in areas where they lost.
The thing is even working class candidates in this leadership contest have the air of giving power point presentations at a vacuum cleaner sales conference... I'm speculating that attitude has been bread from the wider managerial Blairite culture, effecting even those on the left of the party of this generation
 
...great, so I get to live out the rest of my life under Tory governments.

.

The answer, if Labour decide to wander off into the political wilderness, is to start your own centre-left party that refuses the membership applications of anti-Semites like Williamson and barely functioning half-wits like Burgon - but as has been demonstrated many times, starting a new party and steering it to power is not a smooth road.

It is, as IKIP and the Brexit party have shown, a lot easier to just join an existing party and change it from within.
 
The thing is even working class candidates in this leadership contest have the air of giving power point presentations at a vacuum cleaner sales conference... I'm speculating that attitude has been bread from the wider managerial Blairite culture, effecting even those on the left of the party of this generation
I take the point about the impact of managerialism although tbf it’s not limited to either Labour or Britain tbh. I suppose although they aren’t standing Lavery and Rayner aren’t as manufactured .
 
only 7000 voted, not exactly convincing, lost all interest in Momentum, Nandy was good on Neil interview, apparently the political journos are saying she smashed it.
 
Which of the leadership contenders were forged in the fires of Blairism? There's only one who was even an MP under Blair, and I don't think any of them took the usual Blairite NGO / Spad route into parliament.
 
Long bailey seems to be a lovely person, decent, very compassionate, convictions, great back story, but she just seems to be someone without charisma, sadly needed in todays politics, maybe she will yet surpise us.
 
What does it mean to say someone doesn't have "charisma" in this context? How does it matter? The idea that it's needed seems to have caused a massive amount of trouble. Maybe that idea is what we should be fighting.
 
Unless, of course, the membership is so detached from the general public's views, that they keep selecting MPs and electing leaders that will never bring them back into government
And if it is the democratic decision of the membership to select those candidates? Should that be ignored if it does not align with the "general public's views", however that is measured?
Great, so I get to live out the rest of my life under Tory governments.
What are you actually arguing for/against? Something like the Conservative leadership election procedure, something like the old LP college system? I mean even if you are not a member of the LP you can vote in the leadership election if you want.
 
Last edited:
Which of the leadership contenders were forged in the fires of Blairism? There's only one who was even an MP under Blair, and I don't think any of them took the usual Blairite NGO / Spad route into parliament.
That may well be true but there's a new Labour culture that runs through the modern Labour party... It has a feel and a way of talking, Blair onwards. Corbyn, Benn, Skinner etc are noticeably of a different non managerial cut, I would suggest. And there's positive signs of a change with some of the younger intake in their 20s...

I might be making too much of it, but it feels that way to me at least
 
So Long Bailey is tying herself up in knots over abortion limits, of all things. :facepalm:

Long-Bailey says abortion limit should not be different for disability

Not an auspicious start.
That whole "issue" is a joke. It is absolutely right that a different time limit for abortion based on "disability" is discriminatory and actively promotes the idea that the life of a disabled person is worth less than others. Pretty amazingly distasteful that this is being used as a political stick.
 
That whole "issue" is a joke. It is absolutely right that a different time limit for abortion based on "disability" is discriminatory and actively promotes the idea that the life of a disabled person is worth less than others. Pretty amazingly distasteful that this is being used as a political stick.
But that doesn't make Long Bailey less wrong about it. The conclusion should be that the limit is wrong, not that it should be enforced more strictly. And it's politically clueless of her to allow herself to become entangled in it.
 
So Long Bailey is tying herself up in knots over abortion limits, of all things. :facepalm:

Long-Bailey says abortion limit should not be different for disability

Not an auspicious start.

How is that being tied up in knots? It’s a personal view and a perfectly reasonable one. She’s not proposing legislation.

We used to say stuff before this social media age and hold opinions. As much as it’s desirable the Labour Party finds a candidate who appeals to the many, what’s the point if they can say nothing, see nothing, do nothing?
 
I don't think any of them took the usual Blairite NGO / Spad route into parliament.
Actually, Nandy did, the most down to earth and authentic character of the field. Funny that.
That may well be true but there's a new Labour culture that runs through the modern Labour party... It has a feel and a way of talking, Blair onwards. Corbyn, Benn, Skinner etc are noticeably of a different non managerial cut, I would suggest. And there's positive signs of a change with some of the younger intake in their 20s...

I might be making too much of it, but it feels that way to me at least
That culture has been on the wane since way before Corbyn though - the union route into parliament seems much more prevelant among new MPs since 2010 I reckon
 
But that doesn't make Long Bailey less wrong about it. The conclusion should be that the limit is wrong, not that it should be enforced more strictly. And it's politically clueless of her to allow herself to become entangled in it.
she can't really avoid it though, she's a catholic. that's one of the questions they ask catholics.
 
But that doesn't make Long Bailey less wrong about it. The conclusion should be that the limit is wrong, not that it should be enforced more strictly. And it's politically clueless of her to allow herself to become entangled in it.
It's a hit piece by Red Roar, which is a shithouse, supported by the Guardian. Quite apart from the fact that her stated position is absolutely right (and I say that as someone who thinks the limit should be generally raised) you'll note the lack of interest in asking other candidates whether they support raising the time.
 
I don't even support RLB - the Labour Party is now just something that other people do, for me, I have no interest in what happens to it any more - but this general continuation of election style ratfucking does annoy me.
 
Back
Top Bottom