The next Labour leader thread

Watched a bit if the 'next Prime Minister show' on Question Time last night. Who are they trying to kid? The next Prime Minister will undoubtably be Teresa May.
 
nkata said:
Watched a bit if the 'next Prime Minister show' on Question Time last night. Who are they trying to kid? The next Prime Minister will undoubtably be Teresa May.
Click to expand...

Four years is a long time and, in my view, Teresa May is off to a bad start. She's picked a poor team, she doesn't have a clear idea on Brexit, and she's already pandering to the hard right of the Tory party with stuff like Grammar schools. If she sticks to her intention to run until 2020 she faces four years with a waffer thin majority and the choppy waters of Brexit to negotiate. The NHS is a mess, and getting worse; austerity is going to start reaping what it has sown as underfunded council services crumble delivering a stream of horror stories about the vulnerable; the "living" wage isn't being matched with an increase in funding for any of the services hit by it; and Brexit is hurting the economy. This is not an easy time to govern and almost all of it is the Tory's fault.

The major thing in her favour is the payoff from the Tory's deliberate gerrymandering tilting the electoral field towards them and Labour's apparent inability to organise the proverbial in a brewery.
 
Mr Jack said:
Four years is a long time and, in my view, Teresa May is off to a bad start. She's picked a poor team, she doesn't have a clear idea on Brexit, and she's already pandering to the hard right of the Tory party with stuff like Grammar schools. If she sticks to her intention to run until 2020 she faces four years with a waffer thin majority and the choppy waters of Brexit to negotiate. The NHS is a mess, and getting worse; austerity is going to start reaping what it has sown as underfunded council services crumble delivering a stream of horror stories about the vulnerable; the "living" wage isn't being matched with an increase in funding for any of the services hit by it; and Brexit is hurting the economy. This is not an easy time to govern and almost all of it is the Tory's fault.
.
Click to expand...

+1

NHS is my biggest concern and it has been caused by ideological meddling that is a smokescreen to rush privatisation though front doors and break through any windows.
 
I thought Smith seemed thoroughly out of his depth last night to be honest. I was quite open to the idea of him taking over the leadership up to that point. Now, I really can't see how he'd be an improvement.

Corbyn, on the other hand, has clearly grown in his twelve months as party leader. I just can't see how he moves forward from this though. He needs to garner the support of the majority of the PLP, completely change how the media report on him, and get certain extreme elements within his core support under control. I'm not sure all that is even possible. If he wins, will MP's suddenly back him (genuinely)? Will the media suddenly change tune? And I have no idea how he's supposed to get the message through to people that threatening his opponents is unacceptable.

I can't help but wonder what this contest will ultimately achieve.
 
Last edited:
It makes a mockery of the 'labour rebellion' to oust Corbyn because "He's not showing strong leadership" or whatever their excuse was and then put Smith up against him, who is so far out of his depth it's embarrassing.
 
You could say that this Smith chap is making Corbyn look good and I have a feeling this is fairly true.

Outside of that bubble though its still a pretty bad leader with an even worse challenger. Have just checked the BBC politics website as I imagine there is plenty for the Labour party to attack given the latest news on schools and



nothing......

Remit No1 for the opposition - actually provide an opposition. The Tories are going to push out more and more policies at this rate that align with their views. I hardly agree on anything Corbyn represents but he the systems checks and balances on what the Tory Gov wants to do and he just isnt doing that
 
Or is that because jj the BBC is proven to be vehemently against JC?

Lets not forget negative reporting and opinions given on the BBC are very worrying for an "impartial service"
 
You could be right with that.

But part of the job is to manage the media so your message does get out. It seems nobody is interested if he is putting a message out - joe public isnt getting to hear it.
 
jimjamuk said:
But part of the job is to manage the media so your message does get out. It seems nobody is interested if he is putting a message out - joe public isnt getting to hear it.
Click to expand...

Three iron rules of politics: you don't get to choose your opposition, you don't get to choose the media, and you don't get to choose the voters.

Griping about BBC and other media coverage achieves nothing, whoever is Labour leader needs to be able to get our message out despite the hostility of the media.
 
But consider 80% is it of UK news comes from a duopoly source of BBC / Sky (Murdoch press).

That's the sad situation.
 
Mr Jack said:
Three iron rules of politics: you don't get to choose your opposition, you don't get to choose the media, and you don't get to choose the voters.

Griping about BBC and other media coverage achieves nothing, whoever is Labour leader needs to be able to get our message out despite the hostility of the media.
Click to expand...

Well, exactly. People on the alt-right and intransigent left wish there were a different country before them, but, alas, their whole worldview widely diverges from any facts on the ground; nor are they interested in building a narrative out of said facts, or at the very least taking hold of one being written for them and contesting it. Hence the a priori arguments, blame games and othering.

I've had a heated argument over this latest hustings with a family member today. And what I've got back to a few valid points from this thread (from polling numbers to May's rigid hold on Brexit terms, vague as they are atm, to Corbyn's team, staff leaving, scripted and weak opposition (the SNP are doing better at PMQs ffs), NHS uprooting, further education reforms, confused messaging, electoral boundaries review and inability to care for the view of and convert swing voters) was the following inference; it was rather tedious and incoherent, and I just had to interrupt and get into a bit of a row, as it was hard to accept progressive politics has been reduced to this:

Corbyn is good;
Corbyn is what this country needs;
However, AP lead by the Rothchilds cannot have that;
They feed and control all the media and silence Corbyn;
Corbyn's own team are establishment puppets (I assume the PLP);
Further they tell people what to think and they believe it;
Therefore we must be vigilant and true to our principles;
If they, the 'dumb' public, disagree **** them;
They will come on board once our changes improve things;
All voting for Theresa May and Cameron-likes would do is makes us all slaves;
Politicians do not care what people think;
But if people would just get a fair chance to hear Corbyn, they'd vote him in (so much for ******* them then);
I won't hear (great start) a bad word about him! (So we just worship him then?);
You disagree? You must support Trident then. (Erm... okay. We got on a WMD tangent then);
All Jeremy needs is a bit of faith, support and time, and he'll learn to be a good leader;
There's plenty of time to win.

It ended with him trying to convince me that people weren't capable of critical thought of any kind, that the Illuminati (ORLY) existed and the Masonic preoccupations and branding of bank notes of the founding fathers of America were somehow proof... of something, anything. I was also at varying points labelled as a Blairite, Tory, Liberal et al as if it were some sort of grave, shameful and intolerable insult in this country.

When asked for either a source (hell, I would've taken Zizek, the Canary, Morning Star, Chomsky... anything to stir the conversation onto concrete points of disagreement over a fact however skewed, but no) or something that was at least known and proved true beyond reasonable doubt in that whole sequence, my interlocutor chose to go back to an a prior stance instead. That is, he honestly felt that his assumptions were right by definition and only if he could locate a conspiracy bad enough, he would convince me of his whole chain of reasoning and redeem St Jezza in my eyes. Other than unilateral disarmament, which would somehow encourage the US and Russia to follow automagically, there's little policy discussion.

The solution on offer seems to be: bigger rallies and protests, shout louder at people you don't like and vote against any policy deemed not to conform with New New New Old Labour (no compromises, no electoral pacts, no alliances in the Commons, no sponsored bills (has to come from HQ), no PR, etc, etc).

And this was a chap with a private education, reasonably well off from birth and more than enough time and resources to formulate something more coherent than Red Farage (and that's being generous). He was also rather selective as to what 'truth is out there' material he followed. I can only imagine what the rest of core Momentum and Corbyn's team are like in private and the CLP meetings. And yes, I prefer May to that. There's no way of whipping that sort of unicorn into a salvageable manifesto, electoral wins or anything really. Smith has his weak points, but Corbynmania is a disaster on stilts!

:\
 
RaohNS said:
Did that wind you up dj?
Click to expand...

Tbf, it IS a total windup. What constructive points he had to make were lost in a deep and rich personal world he doesn't realise most people would not have access to. To my credit, I listened to the lot. The interruption mostly began after the Illuminati heavy bits, first inferred and then poured out explicitly. And Corbyn's team are letting something like that get out there without much filter, and the Tories know it. They don't need a conspiracy, or big money, all they need is to ask the same competency questions in any public debate and stand back and let the people listen. Having no plan but principles is one thing, but backing up a lack of plan, massive spending when in power and pain that will be required to be weathered over decades under many a Tory government to even begin to approach a win with that nonsense -- by pure dumb luck -- with a torrent of personal opinion fed by conspiracy lore, is beyond the pale. Imagine having something like that coming from a stranger and not a family member, on the doorstep; it's a guaranteed door-slammer!

If I were in the Labour party, we would've ended in a Ukrainian-parliamentary-debate-style resolution. And I can clearly see why the PLP rebelled en masse. As I'm not, and he is, I wished him luck, and if he could think of material to back up his side of the story against pretty much everyone, I'd be happy to get that email. Doubt he will bother. There's always one more tweet to share and rally to go to. It won't do him or the 'dumb' people he's trying to bring up from under the yoke of the mighty any good, as vote, after vote, after vote in parliament is lost and someone else puts their vision into policy. Yes, luck, Labour will need plenty of that.
 
Hehe.

Don't let it get to you. He perhaps feels the same about your views.

I have some massively heated disagreements with my granddad. Normally on something to do with WW2. My nan tells us to stop raising our voices and that's it :D

Labour does need something, yes. I believe the PLP should acquiesce with what the members want. Its like with Brexit and some Politicians saying well we will vote on it.... Yes you already have voted on it and lost, now enact the peoples will.
 
RaohNS said:
Hehe.

Don't let it get to you. He perhaps feels the same about your views.

I have some massively heated disagreements with my granddad. Normally on something to do with WW2. My nan tells us to stop raising our voices and that's it :D
Click to expand...

My Brexiteering uncle has a better approach. He'll reel him in with lines like: 'Oh, that's very nice.' 'How bold!' 'You should run for Prime Minister.' 'Top drawer stuff!' 'That'll show 'em!' Then he will chuckle to himself and vote Tory. But I've had enough. Nothing is achieved by fuelling the Momentum-led sense of divine right to victory. They have no such thing. Staying quiet, or in the other case very loud, without power in the face of electoral suicide and an eternal state of just victimhood may see the middle class survive more or less intact, what about everyone else? How long do they have to wait for their salvation? Enough to be written out of history and the country's politics entirely? How many dashed hopes of revolution resulting from an indefinitely future crisis must we go through to drive the emphasis of hard work in policy making and winning elections home?

RaohNS said:
Labour does need something, yes. I believe the PLP should acquiesce with what the members want. Its like with Brexit and some Politicians saying well we will vote on it.... Yes you already have voted on it and lost, now enact the peoples will.
Click to expand...

Labour members are not 'the people', any more than Tory members are 'the common sense', anyway. Our representatives stand for their entire constituencies -- not exclusively for the parties that back their candidacy. The varied and often conflicting desires coming in from HQ and their local party do not overrule their right to personal judgement, protest and an independent vote on issues. Nor free them from having to hold the leadership of the party to account for woeful performance. Frankly, if this were otherwise, Corbyn himself would not have survived in the party for as long as he did; so be careful what direct democracy you wish for, it has a funny way of delivering exactly the opposite to fairness, representation and proportionate outcomes. Naturally, ideological purity fails in the same way -- even Corbynistas have different ideas of what's pure socialism.

I foresee these fights escalating, a disparate rainbow opposition (as in separate parties with a couple of PMQs each) and the country quietly chuckling to themselves as they go to the polling booths. Sure, back Corbyn, and watch him ask tangential questions of personal concern, without a shadow cabinet to back him, as the NHS crumbles, an almost arbitrary Brexit happens, financial and systematic attacks on his party continue and redistribution of resources away from the people he's meant to be holding on for take hold. Maybe after all that the Tories will come round on women's refuges and Trident at least, eh?:o
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom