Who will be the next Labour leader?

[Shechemite]

That's interesting.
When you say 'doing local work on health/social care' do you mean in an advisory/consultancy sort of way?
Did they actually turn down your offer or just not respond?

They’re polite and seem interested just never hear back from them.

 

[Shechemite]

I think that's a bit unfair. Those people were always going to back the candidate perceived as the most left wing. That doesn't mean they're the bulk of her support, and I'd have hope she might have better political courage to face them down than Corbyn did. We have to tack to the right because of some fringe elements? Very depressing if that's the case.

Sure there’s none nutter RLB supporters. But if you’re the kind of person that lies awake raging that Mossad have nicked your cigarettes, RLB is your choice

 

[lazythursday]

Sure there’s none nutter RLB supporters. But if you’re the kind of person that lies awake raging that Mossad have nicked your cigarettes, RLB is your choice

Nah. Surely you spoil your ballot paper because she signed up to the Board of Deputies' pledges. Write Chris Willaimson is innocent on it or something?

 

[Shechemite]

My local LP seems ok. Some annoying loud student types, and some nutters too, but also some who got the (at times niche) issues k discussed with them

 

[brogdale]

They’re polite and seem interested just never hear back from them.

That seems a shame. What have you offered, to talk at their meetings etc?

 

[Shechemite]

That seems a shame. What have you offered, to talk at their meetings etc?

There’s a lot of ‘integrated care’ bollcoks going on in the region I live in. I want all hands on deck to make sure it’s not a come plate fuckkng catastrophe

 

[Shechemite]

There’s a lot of ‘integrated care’ bollcoks going on in the region I live in. I want all hands on deck to make sure it’s not a come plate fuckkng catastrophe

I was at a NHS strategy meeting this evening (what with me being so ‘vulnerable’)

It was terrifying

 

[brogdale]

There’s a lot of ‘integrated care’ bollcoks going on in the region I live in. I want all hands on deck to make sure it’s not a come plate fuckkng catastrophe

So, you're offering them more of an activist/organiser input, then?

 

[Shechemite]

So, you're offering them more of an activist/organiser input, then?

I’m offering to sit down with them and work what can be done to stop people dying

 

[Shechemite]

I’m offering to sit down with them and work what can be done to stop people dying

The disabled didn’t go away after the election.

 

[Shechemite]

I don’t give a fuck what happens in the leadership election. I want to stop wards being unstaffed etc

 

[oryx]

, I see see RLB as being voter repellent, and while Starmer can certainly do the plausible thing, i'd put some money (but not a huge wedge) on his brexit shenanigans being toxic during a GE campaign.

While we established several pages ago that we vehemently disagree on RLB I completely agree with you on Starmer.

The right-wing media will be out to discredit any Labour leader, obviously, and his stance on Brexit will be the most potent and as you say toxic in this respect.

 

[brogdale]

I’m offering to sit down with them and work what can be done to stop people dying

Fair enough.
I think many CLPs have officers with titles like Political Education Officer. Although it sounds a bit NKVD, it might be best seeing if you can find the contact details of that person; they tend to organise talks & stuff.
Though it may be that they're wary of someone approaching them who is not a member?

 

[kebabking]

I think that's a bit unfair. Those people were always going to back the candidate perceived as the most left wing. That doesn't mean they're the bulk of her support, and I'd have hope she might have better political courage to face them down than Corbyn did. We have to tack to the right because of some fringe elements? Very depressing if that's the case.

I think - if she were to become leader - she's already fucked that: her statements and (non) actions during the campaign have written 'i'm with you!' in letters so large that even loons on the Moon could read them.

I give Jeremy 10 out of 10...

i didn't say anything about the anti-Semitism thing because I was too busy working...

i didn't confront the deranged loon spouting off about the Israeli lobby at the hustings because it wasn't in my script...

It has nothing to do with left-right axis of the leader - there are many here well to the left of RLB and you'd never hear such phrases pass their lips even under torture.

 

[Shechemite]

I think - if she were to become leader - she's already fucked that: her statements and (non) actions during the campaign have written 'i'm with you!' in letters so large that even loons on the Moon could read them.

I give Jeremy 10 out of 10...

i didn't say anything about the anti-Semitism thing because I was too busy working...

i didn't confront the deranged loon spouting off about the Israeli lobby at the hustings because it wasn't in my script...

It has nothing to do with left-right axis of the leader - there are many here well to the left of RLB and you'd never hear such phrases pass their lips even under torture.

That’s what I said you cunt

 

[Shechemite]

Fair enough.
I think many CLPs have officers with titles like Political Education Officer. Although it sounds a bit NKVD, it might be best seeing if you can find the contact details of that person; they tend to organise talks & stuff.
Though it may be that they're wary of someone approaching them who is not a member?

Well if they are weary of that it’s not to their credit. I have nothing to prove to them.

Ta for the info re contacts. I’ll follow that up

 

[brogdale]

Well if they are weary of that it’s not to their credit. I have nothing to prove to them.

Ta for the info re contacts. I’ll follow that up

Speculation on my part, but maybe the anti-semitism issue has sensitised CLPs to be wary of giving non-members a platform in their meetings etc. Just a thought.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Whatever the personal appeal/qualities of RLB, she’s a beacon for the nutters.

Not using disparaging remarks about other people's mental health to discedit their opinions are we?

 

[kabbes]

Not using disparaging remarks about other people's mental health to discedit their opinions are we?

I’m pretty sure he meant it in the sense of having views that are well outside the Overton window, shall we say, rather than in the sense of having difficulties in living.

 

[brogdale]

I’m pretty sure he meant it in the sense of having views that are well outside the Overton window

That's most of on here, then?

 

[kabbes]

That's most of on here, then?

Are you expecting me to dispute that urban is 99% nutters?

 

[brogdale]

Are you expecting me to dispute that urban is 99% nutters?

Actually, to be a tad po-faced here...can't say that I'm at all comfortable with using MH terms like this.

 

[kabbes]

Actually, to be a tad po-faced here...can't say that I'm at all comfortable with using MH terms like this.

Me either. But I also think it’s unfair to impute a particular meaning to MIB’s words when it’s clear that wasn’t the meaning being invoked. No matter how much I would personally avoid that phraseology myself.

 

[Mr Moose]

You made the, frankly ludicrous, claim that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s - that is writing out class, it is a reduction of social mobility to cultural fluff rather than recognising the real existing connection to the means of production. The 70s saw labour power at a real high which is why ever since liberalism has tried to systematically undermine the power of labour with the myth of out on control unions and bodies in the street.

I don’t deny your point about Labour power. But ‘cultural fluff’ as expressed in all forms of personal advancement is also collectively important. Otherwise the Lawrence report may have concluded that institutional racism merely prevented people from attaining a bit of unimportant ‘cultural fluff’.

 

[brogdale]

Me either. But I also think it’s unfair to impute a particular meaning to MIB’s words when it’s clear that wasn’t the meaning being invoked. No matter how much I would personally avoid that phraseology myself.

Not really a question of ascribed meaning; it's a matter of casual usage, innit?

 

[kabbes]

Not really a question of ascribed meaning; it's a matter of casual usage, innit?

Yes, I agree. If that had been the basis on which it was objected to, I wouldn’t have said owt.

 

[redsquirrel]

I don’t deny your point about Labour power. But ‘cultural fluff’ as expressed in all forms of personal advancement is also collectively important. Otherwise the Lawrence report may have concluded that institutional racism merely prevented people from attaining a bit of unimportant ‘cultural fluff’.

You've been supplied with a lot of evidence that social mobility was high during the 70s, certainly far higher than today, are you still maintaining your claim that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?
When in your opinion was social mobility at it's highest? And where is your evidence?

 

[chilango]

You've been supplied with a lot of evidence that social mobility was high during the 70s, certainly far higher than today, are you still maintaining your claim that there was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?
When in your opinion was social mobility at it's highest? And where is your evidence?

I dunno about that.

The evidence I've seen is that inequality was at its lowest during this period and that there is a correlation between equality and mobility.

So, whilst it's reasonable to suggest that social mobility might have been at its highest then, but I wouldn't assert it with 100% confidence.

Flicking through Piketty yesterday (flawed as it is) he seems to suggest that wealth/income gaps can narrow without increasing social mobility.

Personally, I would hypothesize that for sections of the population (predominantly the newly created lower m/c) there was greater mobility available because of free University education, expansion of professional occupations etc. But I'd be hesitant to generalise this across society.

 

[brogdale]

I dunno about that.

The evidence I've seen is that inequality was at its lowest during this period and that there is a correlation between equality and mobility.

So, whilst it's reasonable to suggest that social mobility might have been at its highest then, but I wouldn't assert it with 100% confidence.

Flicking through Piketty yesterday (flawed as it is) he seems to suggest that wealth/income gaps can narrow without increasing social mobility.

Personally, I would hypothesize that for sections of the population (predominantly the newly created lower m/c) there was greater mobility available because of free University education, expansion of professional occupations etc. But I'd be hesitant to generalise this across society.

Yes, for the 5 - 10% of the population that could access HE following the Robbins report, the late 60's - late 70's must have represented some sort of high water mark for a certain kind of social mobility. Wouldn't like to speculate beyond that for the 90% who didn't/couldn't, though.

 

[Shechemite]

Not using disparaging remarks about other people's mental health to discedit their opinions are we?

This is pathetic