Who will be the next Labour leader?
- Thread starter Don Troooomp
- Start date
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:
www.theguardian.com
Starmer couldn’t be any more clear. The problem isn’t him, the policy or the politics that led to Labour to end up with a slow motion car crash policy on Brexit. Given this is the case it is clear that for him the blame must be placed firmly at the door of the electorate.
That Sir Kier is the political representative of the new most dangerous class - the Waitrose narrating class cabal - couldn’t be clearer. That it’s ideas are embedded within his campaign is now clear. Those ideas are increasingly anti-democratic and the Brechtian delivery of them is highly disturbing
Labour leadership contest: Keir Starmer defends Brexit policy
Favourite to succeed Jeremy Corbyn says party was right and should have gone further
Starmer couldn’t be any more clear. The problem isn’t him, the policy or the politics that led to Labour to end up with a slow motion car crash policy on Brexit. Given this is the case it is clear that for him the blame must be placed firmly at the door of the electorate.
That Sir Kier is the political representative of the new most dangerous class - the Waitrose narrating class cabal - couldn’t be clearer. That it’s ideas are embedded within his campaign is now clear. Those ideas are increasingly anti-democratic and the Brechtian delivery of them is highly disturbing
Last edited:
Spandex
A crazy bulbous punchbag of sound
'Being electable' isn't synonymous with 'moving to the right', despite what the Liz Kendalls of the world would have us believe.
If the Labour left could find someone who looks like they could organise their way out of a paper bag, can answer questions confidently and - let's go wild - can demonstrate some understanding of the communities they seek to represent, then they'd be onto a winner. Shame that person remains elusive.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:
Labour leadership contest: Keir Starmer defends Brexit policy
Favourite to succeed Jeremy Corbyn says party was right and should have gone further
Starmer couldn’t be any more clear. The problem isn’t him, the policy or the politics that led to Labour to end up with a slow motion car crash policy on Brexit. Given this is the case it is clear that for him the blame must be placed firmly at the door of the electorate.
That Sir Kier is the political representative of the new most dangerous class - the Waitrose narrating class cabal - couldn’t be clearer. That it’s ideas are embedded within his campaign is now clear. Those ideas are increasingly anti-democratic and the Brechtian delivery of them is highly disturbing
Tbf he can hardly say it was a bag of shit given he was the architect and string puller behind it. Even though very clearly given the only substantive difference between 2017 & 2019 was this.
What is more perplexing is why loads of other people think its a good idea, fucks sake
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
Here, in all it’s glory, is why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour Party, or even be in the shadow cabinet:
Labour leadership contest: Keir Starmer defends Brexit policy
Favourite to succeed Jeremy Corbyn says party was right and should have gone further
Starmer couldn’t be any more clear. The problem isn’t him, the policy or the politics that led to Labour to end up with a slow motion car crash policy on Brexit. Given this is the case it is clear that for him the blame must be placed firmly at the door of the electorate.
That Sir Kier is the political representative of the new most dangerous class - the Waitrose narrating class cabal - couldn’t be clearer. That it’s ideas are embedded within his campaign is now clear. Those ideas are increasingly anti-democratic and the Brechtian delivery of them is highly disturbing
Thanks. Can I put you down as ‘maybe’ then?
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
He looks as if he is being interviewed in one of the static caravans we have stayed in.
I expect that’s mostly how he goes on holiday.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
I am getting a lot of text messages on behalf of various leader / deputy leader candidates. Also got a few last month about london assembly candidates
Have had a few the last day or two addressed to Jade (which most certainly isn't my name)
Wonder if this is the same Jade (who has a mobile number very similar to mine) that I got a lot of calls / messages from sodding Talk Talk for a few years back, about some sort of installation at her business. I ended up with enough info to trace the business and contact her to sort them out...
I have dropped an e-mail to labour party membership
Have had a few the last day or two addressed to Jade (which most certainly isn't my name)
Wonder if this is the same Jade (who has a mobile number very similar to mine) that I got a lot of calls / messages from sodding Talk Talk for a few years back, about some sort of installation at her business. I ended up with enough info to trace the business and contact her to sort them out...
I have dropped an e-mail to labour party membership
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
No but the logic of making electability the only, or even key, tenant of leadership has repeatedly led to the social democrat parties selling out, it was exactly what led to Kinnock, New Labour, Clinton, etc.
Socialism, social democracy, liberalism, conservatism all mean something, if you want to favour Starmer (or whoever) because he is more electable fine, but lets be clear at the point you are rejecting socialism or even strong social democracy. Before Xmas I was having a drink with some people from work, one of them said that they were "a bit of a socialist" and having a go at people for not voting, this was someone that is not part of a union and crossed picket lines, so a scab and not any type of socialist. There's this horrible individualist modern tendency that you can take any actions so long as mentally you remain a "socialist" (or whatever), you can't.
Spandex
A crazy bulbous punchbag of sound
I think you're projecting a bit there. I haven't favored any of the candidates. I don't see a Labour government as an end, just something that would be better in the background than we've got. The talk about electability as I've read it in the past few pages has mainly been head shaking at how poor the candidates are and a wish that RLB was better, not the old 'abandon principles to get elected' argument.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
The you was plural not singular, one if you prefer.
And there have been a number of people on this thread that have specifically focused on the important of electability, of Labour being in government.
And there have been a number of people on this thread that have specifically focused on the important of electability, of Labour being in government.
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
Very much this ^.
Labour were in an absolute cleft stick over Brexit. Despite Corbyn being like Marmite they managed to get an election result in 2017 that resulted in a hung parliament, and did OK in the local elections the following year. It's clear to me that the reason they lost so many seats was Johnson braying on about getting Brexit done and Labour effectively (or not effectively, should I say) committing to a second referendum. In terms of allegedly losing the hearts and minds of working class people, their policies, and issues like anti-Semitism - not that much changed between 2017 and 2019 IMO.
Despite me being a fan of Corbyn, a new leader may not have so much baggage in terms of their history - things such as talking to the IRA and Hamas, which to me and probably most of you on here seems like a diplomatic and reasoned way forward (and it obviously worked in the case of the IRA) but is easily demonised by the mainstream media into 'he's a friend of terrorists'.
I say 'may' because Starmer will be tainted with being a remainer. (I voted remain and wish we hadn't left the EU, but didn't back a second referendum). The two others, less so.
I would extend that thought to being a paradigm of modern consumerist individualism generally, not just relevant to socialism. People think they are in control of their identity, and that there is some kind of inherent true self that can be discovered if they chip away at the stone that surrounds it. This self sits protected from any social circumstances, relationships, actions or context, inviolable to change. So we get identity being primary over all, more important than any kind of structural or systemic analysis. It doesn’t matter what you do or how you relate to the system, it only matters what you feel on the inside.
The problem with this is not only that it leads to poor politics and social atomisation. It also leads to poor mental health. The level of conflict people feel between their lived reality and this identity they know exists on the inside creates serious distress. And the existential guilt that is created by fearing the true identity remains unrealised becomes a crippling anxiety. Authentic feeling is replaced a kind of sincerity to the imagined synthetic creation. The evidence of this is in the horrendous and growing levels of medicalised distress we see all around us.
Anyway, sorry to digress from the riveting three-way failurefest that is the Labour Party leadership race. But, you know, sometimes the mind wanders.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Was the next one an extended ad for an original Irish cream? For balance like.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Followed by a cheeky Nandos, obvs...
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Dunno, I turned over to Only Connect when they asked them about Caroline Flack for the 2nd question.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
wish I had
Proper Tidy
Arsed
How bad is it? I'm watching traffic cops
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
It was turgid. Nothing new. Same issues: trans, Corbyn, Brexit, the last manifesto, more Corbyn, best labour leader since 1970.
The candidates, especially the belched up candidate of Waitrose London Starmer, are dreadful. But the format was worse. No searching questions. A tired format of audience Q&A and no clear attempts to highlight the detailed policy or differences between the 3.
The candidates, especially the belched up candidate of Waitrose London Starmer, are dreadful. But the format was worse. No searching questions. A tired format of audience Q&A and no clear attempts to highlight the detailed policy or differences between the 3.
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
‘Waitrose London’ lol. I mean I know what you mean, it has some posh nosh, but it’s also a store found in service stations and supermarket forecourts. It’s an (albeit not worker controlled) employee owned business and London itself is not a rude word.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Starmer speaks for, to and is representative of a specific mileu. Overwhelmingly clustered in London, almost exclusively middle to upper middle class and both furious and scared at the apparent collapse of their specific position within the structural organisation of society.
I respect his class background, but of all of the possible leader candidates - all of whom will come under pressure to conform - he’s the candidate who’ll buckle fastest and hardest. The establishment weight behind him recognises that he’s the one to lead Labour back into the prescribed field of ‘common sense’ neoliberalism. A useful sub if Johnson crashes the project. But also, and this is the key point of his attraction, the candidate who offers the narrating class it’s role back and instinctively values it.
As for Waitrose change it to ‘the Guardian’ if it makes you feel better.
Last edited:
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
Starmer was doing the ‘have a proper debate’ thing as a means to avoid answering questions.
That ‘best leader since 1970’ thing was clearly trying to make them awkwardly avoid saying Blair, bit of a cunts question - do I recall correctly that it came from Guru Murphy himself and not an audience member? Shit stirrer.
Nandy seemed the most likeable and human out of them, though not necessarily an indicator of who had the best politics, just the most relatable and effective, Starmer too much of a politician, Long Bailey a bit awkward and lacking a bit of gravity perhaps.
That ‘best leader since 1970’ thing was clearly trying to make them awkwardly avoid saying Blair, bit of a cunts question - do I recall correctly that it came from Guru Murphy himself and not an audience member? Shit stirrer.
Nandy seemed the most likeable and human out of them, though not necessarily an indicator of who had the best politics, just the most relatable and effective, Starmer too much of a politician, Long Bailey a bit awkward and lacking a bit of gravity perhaps.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
She's just trying to attract floating voters.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Raheem
Well-Known Member
I'm really not sure about this. It might be fair enough to suspect he might be the least unhappy about being brought to heel (assuming we give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not just a pure Blairite fifth columnist). But the mechanics are complex. He's also the candidate the Labour right and the media will find it hardest to mobilise against (because he's a man, because he can't be accused of inexperience and because it will be harder to unite centrist against him). So, in the event that he pursues a decent policy agenda (I would agree that it is far from obvious he will), he might just get away with it.
On the other hand, RLB is more likely to want to pursue worthwhile policies, but I'd be a long way from sure she has the skills to resist the inevitable relentless attacks and plots. Her choice might end up being about doing what she has to to survive.
It feels like a pig in a poke, but that's democracy for you. I'll vote for RLB but, whoever wins, I think it will be a while before it's clear what the result means.
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
That’s fair enough, though to be even fairer they will all buckle and it is guesswork which one would do so the least. That would appear to be RLB, but I couldn’t say there is much to be confident of that, nor that events wouldn’t overtake her in any case.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I agree that’s where it’s descended to. As for RLB’s campaign, it’s almost sad in its pitiful lack of ideas, energy and inspiration. You can almost hear the air wheezing out of it.
But my impression of her and Nandy is that they are less instinctively comfortable with the ideas, the culture and the social formation about to recapture Labour than Starmer. It’s not much to cling to I know.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Two points on this.
Firstly, I see this question the other way around. I think Starmer is seen as the man who can move sections of the Party for those reasons.
But the more substantive point is this. The main argument for Corbyn was that he represented, no matter how clumsily, a clear rejection of the hegemony of neo-liberal ‘common sense’ of the last 40 years. I’ve never been slow to attack his myriad shortcomings but have always pointed to the significance of this singular point.
Everything about Starmer suggests a man at ease with the constructed reality that infects our politics, culture, society and the self. I sense the opposite of a flinty determination to avoid Labour folding back into ‘the real’.
RLB is hopeless. Nandy is a brilliant communicator but there is a black hole of substance and politics. But in both cases there is a glimmer, no more than that I accept, that they recognise the pitfalls of such a journey.
Even the dogs on the street recognise the new terrain of politics. But watching Starmer last night he really struck me as a retro politician. Someone who still believes that social democracy third way politics have a future. Someone who instinctively shares the anger of the narrating class and wants to reconstitute it’s position within the ‘real’.
In this election the best option is a victory for the hopeless or clueless. The alternative is much worse
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Pretty much spot on IMO.
Similar threads
- Poll
