Who will be the next Labour leader?

[cupid_stunt]

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?

It becomes pointless if the choice means the party will never win, and the "general public's views" are measured at the time of a general election, I am amazed I have to explain that.

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.

I am not arguing for/against anything, I don't have any answers, but I do want to see Labour strong enough to actually get elected, and I don't see RLB being the solution, her rating of Corbyn as 10 out 10, after such a massive car-crash, is beyond a joke.

What I do know, is a lot of family & friends that are traditional Labour supporters/voters, some former members, turned their back on the party because of Corbyn & momentum, these people need winning back.

I know an active member of the Tory party, who's apparently is a regular at the local Conservative club, and I enjoy picking his brains -

- when it came to the Tory leadership battle, he admitted that he & most of his mates voted for Johnson, despite not liking him, but because of what the choices were, he was most electable.

- he now tells me, he & his mates are hoping RLB becomes Labour leader, what they fear is KS.

Take it with a pinch of salt if you want, I am just putting it out there.

 

[Mr Moose]

It becomes pointless if the choice means the party will never win, and the "general public's views" are measured at the time of a general election, I am amazed I have to explain that.



I am not arguing for/against anything, I don't have any answers, but I do want to see Labour strong enough to actually get elected, and I don't see RLB being the solution, her rating of Corbyn as 10 out 10, after such a massive car-crash, is beyond a joke.

What I do know, is a lot of family & friends that are traditional Labour supporters/voters, some former members, turned their back on the party because of Corbyn & momentum, these people need winning back.

I know an active member of the Tory party, who's apparently is a regular at the local Conservative club, and I enjoy picking his brains -

- when it came to the Tory leadership battle, he admitted that he & most of his mates voted for Johnson, despite not liking him, but because of what the choices were, he was most electable.

- he now tells me, he & his mates are hoping RLB becomes Labour leader, what they fear is KS.

Take it with a pinch of salt if you want, I am just putting it out there.

Yeah, but Brexit and nasty Remain.

 

[redsquirrel]

It becomes pointless if the choice means the party will never win, and "general public's views" are measured at the time of a general elections, I am amazed I have to explain that.

In your view (as a non-member?) perhaps. In the view of members maybe not. Members may decide that a commitment to a particular political direction/positions is more important than "electability" (whatever that means). It's not "pointless" to SNP members that the party commits to Scottish Independence, regardless of the fact that it might cost them some votes.

I am not arguing for/against anything, I don't have any answers, but I do want to see is Labour strong enough to actually get elected, and I don't see RBL being the solution, her rating of Corbyn as 10 out 10, after such a massive car-crash, is beyond a joke.

Then join the party, or even just pay £25 and vote. You say you want Labour to get elected but (unless you are a member) you clearly don't care about the LP to commit to it as those members that intend to vote for RLB do otherwise you'd pay the subs, you'd go along to meetings, etc. The idea that the democratic views of members (who commit their time and effort to the party) should be somehow impinged because of your view as a non-member leads to the sort of anti-democratic politics of New Labour.

If you are going to argue that it is not tactically sensible (again on what basis and from what political position?) for the LP to elect RLB as leader or deselect certain MPs ok, but the idea that it is somehow unfair or wrong is a different kettle of fish.

 

[kebabking]

cupid_stunt - its long been a political truth (with the odd exception) that the Tory party understands that principle, without power, is a wasted breath. They long ago decided that it's better to have 40% of what you want, 40% of what you can live with, and 20% of what you don't like than 0% of what you want, and 100% of what you don't want.

Both Cameron and Johnson are indicators of this attitude - they don't particularly like either of them, but they recognise that they'd bring them power. Some power is better than no power...

 

[cupid_stunt]

In your view (as a non-member?) perhaps. In the view of members maybe not. Members may decide that a commitment to a particular political direction/positions is more important than "electability" (whatever that means). It's not "pointless" to SNP members that the party commits to Scottish Independence, regardless of the fact that it might cost them some votes.

Then join the party, or even just pay £25 and vote. You say you want Labour to get elected but (unless you are a member) you clearly don't care about the LP to commit to it as those members that intend to vote for RLB do otherwise you'd pay the subs, you'd go along to meetings, etc. The idea that the democratic views of members (who commit their time and effort to the party) should be somehow impinged because of your view as a non-member leads to the sort of anti-democratic politics of New Labour.

If you are going to argue that it is not tactically sensible (again on what basis and from what political position?) for the LP to elect RLB as leader or deselect certain MPs ok, but the idea that it is somehow unfair or wrong is a different kettle of fish.

And, that's just the attitude that will inflict Tory rule for the foreseeable future.

 

[redsquirrel]

And, that's just the attitude that will inflict Tory rule for the foreseeable future.

What the attitude that the people who care enough to commit money and time to becoming members should also get to decide party policy? Yes what a terrible viewpoint.

FFS look at the sort of technocratic nonsense you are arguing, that political groups should limit democracy to order to facilitate the opinions of non-members.

 

[cupid_stunt]

cupid_stunt - its long been a political truth (with the odd exception) that the Tory party understands that principle, without power, is a wasted breath. They long ago decided that it's better to have 40% of what you want, 40% of what you can live with, and 20% of what you don't like than 0% of what you want, and 100% of what you don't want.

Both Cameron and Johnson are indicators of this attitude - they don't particularly like either of them, but they recognise that they'd bring them power. Some power is better than no power...

Indeed, it's both reality & common sense, something that seems not to register with people in the momentum & urban bubble.

 

[cupid_stunt]

What the attitude that the people who care enough to commit money and time to becoming members should also get to decide party policy? Yes what a terrible viewpoint.

FFS look at the sort of technocratic nonsense you are arguing, that political groups should limit democracy to order to facilitate the opinions of non-members.

I haven't argued anything, I've said I don't know the answer.

But, it seems fucking pointless if the membership keeps electing leaders, that will never become PM, and leave us with the Tories forever.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

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.

I’m amazed 7,000 bothered to vote given the fact that there was no choice.

As for Nandy, she comes over very professionally and clearly. But is there any substance to what she says? Neill asked her last night what the position would be if a local community didn’t want wind turbines in their area or if they wanted a selective school. Would Nandy, who had just said her central offer was the devolution of power down to communities allow that. No prizes for guessing the answer

 

[redsquirrel]

I haven't argued anything, I've said I don't know the answer.

You've argued that there is something "wrong" with "the membership [...] selecting MPs and electing leaders that will never bring them back into government."

But, it seems fucking pointless if the membership keeps electing leaders, that will never become PM, and leave us with the Tories forever.

Pointless for you maybe, pointless for others, who might place greater importance on the labour movement than the LP, maybe not.

I'm not an LP member, hell I'm opposed to the LP but the squeals of non-members about how terrible it is that LP members get to decide their leaders, having (an actually very small say) in re-selection or decisions on policy are frankly pathetic. If you* care about the LP getting into power then have the commitment to join the bloody thing, go along to meetings and make your case for "electability" to other members, go out canvassing for the party and/or candidate you support.

*plural you

EDIT: It's pretty simple if you are a socialist you argue in favour of measures that increase democracy and workers control - even if that means that decisions that you personally might not agree with are more likely to get made.

 

[cantsin]

Hilariously Angela Rayner almost lost the vote for momentum supper for the deputy job. This despite the fact that she was the only candidate their supporters were able to vote for!

loads of us are voting Burgon, ( despite liking AR ) am surprised she's squeaked it tbh

 

[Mr Moose]

I’m amazed 7,000 bothered to vote given the fact that there was no choice.

As for Nandy, she comes over very professionally and clearly. But is there any substance to what she says? Neill asked her last night what the position would be if a local community didn’t want wind turbines in their area or if they wanted a selective school. Would Nandy, who had just said her central offer was the devolution of power down to communities allow that. No prizes for guessing the answer

I thought she came across very well and held her own. But I agree there is dearth of substance. So on the NHS question she paused over it and eventually said she was against privatisation. Box ticked, but it’s thin to pause and then say just that. The NHS is already heavily privatised, so does she mean stop there or the current sorts of privatisation are ok let’s have more or reverse it? Because it will carry on without a significant steer against.

 

[killer b]

loads of us are voting Burgon

I guess it would keep him safely out of the way

 

[ska invita]

Actually, Nandy did, the most down to earth and authentic character of the field. Funny that.
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

do you have a theory as to why the field is so weak, that doesnt involve Blair?

 

[killer b]

do you have a theory as to why the field is so weak, that doesnt involve Blair?

when was it ever that strong?

 

[Mr Moose]

cupid_stunt - its long been a political truth (with the odd exception) that the Tory party understands that principle, without power, is a wasted breath. They long ago decided that it's better to have 40% of what you want, 40% of what you can live with, and 20% of what you don't like than 0% of what you want, and 100% of what you don't want.

Both Cameron and Johnson are indicators of this attitude - they don't particularly like either of them, but they recognise that they'd bring them power. Some power is better than no power...

I think this is a little generous to the Tories. They’ve been ripping themselves apart over Europe for decades and have been stuffed full of fucking loons like Chope, Bone or Cash who would probably imprison men for wearing flip flops.

What they have is a very coherent media to keep a narrative going on their behalf and trash anyone else.

 

[sleaterkinney]

In your view (as a non-member?) perhaps. In the view of members maybe not. Members may decide that a commitment to a particular political direction/positions is more important than "electability" (whatever that means). It's not "pointless" to SNP members that the party commits to Scottish Independence, regardless of the fact that it might cost them some votes.

If fact, electability or appealing to a broad section of the population can even be seen as a bad thing.

 

[Arbeter Fraynd]

do you have a theory as to why the field is so weak, that doesnt involve Blair?

is it a weak field, relatively speaking? I mean I'm not very impressed with any of them, but surely Starmer and Phillips, much as I dislike them, have more name recognition and personality than Owen Smith or Liz Kendall had?

in terms of a weak field on the left of the party, why would committed, radical, imaginative, thoughtful, working class left activists have got involved in Labour pre-Corbyn? In which case there hasn't been much time for any talent there is to come through - there do seem to be some articulate and interesting new MPs and candidates who didn't get elected

 

[Mr Moose]

If fact, electability or appealing to a broad section of the population can even be seen as a bad thing.

It may not, but if it’s dishonest it’s catastrophic. Under Ed we had Labour’s feeble and dishonest attempts to be tough on immigration and benefits, not because these things necessarily appealed to anyone or solved anyone’s problems but because they appealed to the jackals of the press.

 

[redsquirrel]

If fact, electability or appealing to a broad section of the population can even be seen as a bad thing.

I've not said, or even implied, anything of the kind. I've not made argument as to what should be the (prime) concern of members.

My point is very simple - that those (like you) that squeal about how unfair it is that the LP, a party that you are not a member of, whose political views doesn't square with your political views - doesn't behave as you want it to behave, and so would argue in flavour of anti-democratic policies are pathetic fools.

 

[Proper Tidy]

What tories fear is this middle class bloke with middle class politics say middle class blokes with middle class politics. No disrespect to anybody but it's boring

 

[ska invita]

when was it ever that strong?

hah fair enough...first time ive looked tbh

 

[ska invita]

What tories fear is this middle class bloke with middle class politics say middle class blokes with middle class politics. No disrespect to anybody but it's boring

also he gives off the air of a man going through a horrible divorce and eating cornflakes for dinner. Id go beyond boring to depressing

 

[killer b]

hah fair enough...first time ive looked tbh

It's easy to forget that there isn't actually that many people in parliament - and of course currently Labour are on a historic low anyway. Once you remove the terminally depraved, the brain dead and the inbreds you're lucky if there's 10-15 people you'd even be happy to share a cab with, let alone let run the country.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

loads of us are voting Burgon

Why?

 

[sleaterkinney]

I've not said, or even implied, anything of the kind. I've not made argument as to what should be the (prime) concern of members.

My point is very simple - that those (like you) that squeal about how unfair it is that the LP, a party that you are not a member of, whose political views doesn't square with your political views - doesn't behave as you want it to behave, and so would argue in flavour of anti-democratic policies are pathetic fools.

I think that there were a number of far left entryists that came into Labour and don't square with my political views, certainly. How much a grip they have on the party, we'll see.

 

[redsquirrel]

You are not even a social democrat. You argued in favour of austerity - a position never really supported by the majority of LP members, hence Corbyn's win. The idea all these horrible far left entryists took the party away from you (were you ever a member?) is deluded crap. Your politics was more or less aligned with the leadership of the party for a short time, it was never aligned with the wider party membership/culture.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I find it weird how new labour explicitly made a break with labour hence new and yet their heirs spend their lives pissing and moaning about how they're true labour not like these new cunts. God the labour party is awful isn't it

 

[redsquirrel]

I find it weird how new labour explicitly made a break with labour hence new and yet their heirs spend their lives pissing and moaning about how they're true labour not like these new cunts. God the labour party is awful isn't it

It is. But it's not as awful as the liberal-left moaners, going on about how terrible it is that the LP isn't doing what they want

 

[steeplejack]

And all this drags on until April, as bleak a looped box set of Heimat playing in an abandoned shopping centre