The next Labour leader thread

[RaohNS]

Khan is a 'self-serving slimeball' to the extent Corbyn is a working-class hero, Boris is charming, Trump is principled, Nige is straightforward and Bernie Sanders is a crypto-communist. Incidentally, all of them retained speechwriters and repeated themselves frequently on air: a reasonable communications strategy appropriate for the medium, where one can face one or both of the two significant obstacles to one's message: hostile interlocutor; short attention spans in the audience. Moreover, running for London Mayor and jumping behind the losing side of a leadership contest -- with the process, scrutiny and public engagement this entails -- is a funny way of making a 'quick buck' for a qualified lawyer, just sayin'.

As a person who thinks most lawyers are slimeballs not exactly something I can ascribe to.

To Khan's credit: he did face the media; didn't hide in toilets; answered claims and criticisms against him directly; defined himself and his stance on issues publicly; did not avoid debates; and canvassed broadly, including in majority conservative areas. Yes, there will be recurring attack themes against Corbyn; just as there will be common attack themes against Smith. If neither candidate had to face up to anything uncomfortable, it'd have been a pointless exercise. Indeed, if there was nothing uncomfortable for Corbyn to face up to, and he commanded the confidence of his own party, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

And in this media he trashed Corbyn at every opportunity while surfing the wave of Labour support generated undisputedly by the very man he loathes. The difference of course is that he was given air time. Corbyn has been blacked out where possible until his tie is loose at an event, or he has a prior engagement and so must hate the queen. Its all narrative.

That's just wishful thinking.

The days of amateur demagogues and mob rule aren't about to return any time soon, either. It's a full-time, demanding job; and although professional, academic and life experience outside politics is admirable and valuable, experience, competency and communication skills in the job are not optional -- it's called public office for a reason, and why hopefuls for MP candidacy are often advised to stand for local councils first, for example.

I now think of it as a system of how much can we get away with without rioting... What can we take and get away with it. Its actually a very rational thought that's backed with a plethora of evidence relating to political insouciance.

it is through representatives with the above qualities, that can take public office, you obtain lasting change in a representative democracy, safeguarded against regression. Waving placards, taking part in petty vandalism, ranting on social media or, in extreme cases, killing MPs, acts of war and terrorism can only take one so far.

Depends on conviction really and am quite intrigued as to the Jo Cox reference... Its purpose or point?

, sir, you've discovered organised societies and markets, though you seem to be missing a few arrows on your conceptual diagram! It's more grey than that: concentrated voting, value and group identification and consumer behaviour can flip the power pyramid any which way, even under neoliberal norms you seem to rail against often enough. However, what democracy is ought to be tomorrow doesn't free you from the historical effects of bad choices (as you perceive anyway) by other people today, nor swallowing their consequences in the system as it stands. This negative effect of democratic freedom cannot be eliminated regardless of the form of democracy you adopt or how closely representative it is.

I'm going to have to disagree, that's not organised markets. A system that you called organised markets that operates like : Corporations>Government>People is not a democratic system. I bet you must by default agree with Citizens United for example.

The system should be: People>Government>Corporations... Without the people and their will... The other two would be damned.

fact, it's not the 'establishment' that needs dismantling or defending as such, but rather the opposite extreme case of people being fundamentally rational and able to coexist in social groups without superstructures of state and industry, whilst reaping the full benefits of the two, that requires proving and backing with empirical evidence. (For that's where most bottom-up arguments find their root.) Or putting the problem more succinctly: an unintended consequence for every libertarian; a dictator for every populist.

So rational thought... Needs dismantling? The rest of this quote is just obfuscation and an enigma.

you think creative destruction, protest and the vague 'voice of the people' is a viable solution that can be put into a working social model and policies; I wish the very best of luck to you in your noble endeavour.

Except for the fact that almost every major western powerhouse is built on that vague voice that you spit on.

Corbyn is, of course, a dedicated politician who has never had a job outside of politics whereas Smith has had a successful career outside politics, as has Khan for that matter. Funny how these things work.

I have fundamental disagreements with lawyers in the best of days. Morality with most in the legal profession seems to be rock bottom or below.

Depends how much you are prepared to consider for Smith on what narrates success. A lobbyist isn't someone I think is prepared to uphold values when being paid to press for what their master wishes.

Raoh makes exceptions for 'nice guys'.

Nice guys... You'll have to explain that one further or are you going down the road again?

 

[datalol-jack]

Raoh, you're a magnificent beast, aren't you? I've respectfully read your opinion, and where it was coherent, disagree with it entirely. Though one of these days, you really need to give me the lo-down on your background and run-ins with the law. You seem to lead quite an eventuful life.

 

[RaohNS]

Raoh, you're a magnificent beast, aren't you? I've respectfully read your opinion, and where it was coherent, disagree with it entirely. Though one of these days, you really need to give me the lo-down on your background and run-ins with the law. You seem to lead quite an eventuful life.

I do have quite a marvellous mind - its true. I'm surprised at the lack of challenge given to my ostensibly incoherent opinion. If so simple to apparently dispute a clever (albeit sarcastic) person such as thee should have no problem running over it.

I could always do that but I'm not sure you are a an avid reader of non-fiction accounts and settle for something otherwise...

 

[Mr Jack]

And in this media he trashed Corbyn at every opportunity while surfing the wave of Labour support generated undisputedly by the very man he loathes.

What wave of Labour support?!? Labour's polling has been dire since Corbyn took office, under him Labour landed one of their worst ever local election results in opposition! Khan has far better personal approval ratings before nationally, and in London, than Corbyn.

I have fundamental disagreements with lawyers in the best of days. Morality with most in the legal profession seems to be rock bottom or below.

Khan was a human rights lawyer; I have quite a lot of respect for kind of work he practised.

Depends how much you are prepared to consider for Smith on what narrates success. A lobbyist isn't someone I think is prepared to uphold values when being paid to press for what their master wishes.

Firstly, Smith wasn't a lobbyist, secondly, as well as his successful career in policy and government relations he was also a producer for BBC radio. Honestly, we criticise politicians for being "career politicians" and then complain when they have careers before politics.

 

[datalol-jack]

I do have quite a marvellous mind - its true. I'm surprised at the lack of challenge given to my ostensibly incoherent opinion. If so simple to apparently dispute a clever (albeit sarcastic) person such as thee should have no problem running over it.

I could always do that but I'm not sure you are a an avid reader of non-fiction accounts and settle for something otherwise...

Pleased do try, I've read Insanties_birth, scorza and other great GD essayists unabridged.

 

[RaohNS]

What wave of Labour support?!? Labour's polling has been dire since Corbyn took office, under him Labour landed one of their worst ever local election results in opposition! Khan has far better personal approval ratings before nationally, and in London, than Corbyn.

Delusional much? And labour are winning contests across the board.

was a human rights lawyer; I have quite a lot of respect for kind of work he practised.

One thing you have clearly yet to learn is that lawyers are in it for themselves and not their clients. About the only thing I can attribute to him is he made it out of a quagmire and likely working in a local takeaway.

Firstly, Smith wasn't a lobbyist, secondly, as well as his successful career in policy and government relations he was also a producer for BBC radio. Honestly, we criticise politicians for being "career politicians" and then complain when they have careers before politics.

....Head of Government... RELATIONS. Pfizer. Look at who funds him as I've said before. A questionable individual in my eyes.

Pleased do try, I've read Insanties_birth, scorza and other great GD essayists unabridged.

No its ok I don't have the time and you don't have the effort.

 

[scorza]

 

[Mr Jack]

Delusional much?

Everything I said is verifiable true. Here's the polling:

here's the record in local elections:

here's Khan vs Corbyn's personal rating among Londoners:

Everything I said was correct and as for being delusional:

And labour are winning contests across the board.

Labour are winning in our strongholds, sure. We're not winning outside of them, and we're performing poorly where we need to be doing well. We came third in the last round of Scottish Elections for goodness sake! Beaten by the Tories in Scotland, I never thought I'd see the day. Midterm local elections should be delivering us hundreds of council seats, and they're not. The current poll deficit is a new-PM bounce for the Tories but we weren't ahead before that either. Labour are on course to be soundly beaten at the next general election; anything else is delusional.

....Head of Government... RELATIONS. Pfizer. Look at who funds him as I've said before. A questionable individual in my eyes.

Yes...? And? He didn't have a lobby pass, ergo, he wasn't a lobbyist.

 

[413x]

As a non labour voter I much prefer Khan to corbyn. Was interesting hearing him say corbyn has to go.
Has not really a good leader is he

 

[StriderX]

Welp, Khan isnt Labour leader is he nor vying for the position, what a totally irrelevant matter.

 

[datalol-jack]

Welp, Khan isnt Labour leader is he nor vying for the position, what a totally irrelevant matter.

Welp, there's a reason he and Burnham (almost certain to become one soon) are sitting this one out as mayors: the time isn't right for the former (he needs to deliver on his pledges and promises for London, for starters), and Burham's already had a run. Should their terms as mayors of major cities prove a success, it'll put them in good stead for another run at the leadership with a more robust field of candidates. Jezza's 'I haven't been really tested' defence won't hold eternally.

 

[Mr Jack]

Welp, Khan isnt Labour leader is he nor vying for the position, what a totally irrelevant matter.

It's relevant to the absurd claim that Khan's win in London is attributable to Corbyn and thus his support for Smith is some sort of "betrayal".

 

[datalol-jack]

It's relevant to the absurd claim that Khan's win in London is attributable to Corbyn and thus his support for Smith is some sort of "betrayal".

Every Labour success is a Corbyn success, and every other failure is somebody else's fault. It's a very worn out record from Milne et al by now.

 

[RaohNS]

Everything I said is verifiable true. Here's the polling:

here's the record in local elections:

here's Khan vs Corbyn's personal rating among Londoners:

Everything I said was correct and as for being delusional:

Labour are winning in our strongholds, sure. We're not winning outside of them, and we're performing poorly where we need to be doing well. We came third in the last round of Scottish Elections for goodness sake! Beaten by the Tories in Scotland, I never thought I'd see the day. Midterm local elections should be delivering us hundreds of council seats, and they're not. The current poll deficit is a new-PM bounce for the Tories but we weren't ahead before that either. Labour are on course to be soundly beaten at the next general election; anything else is delusional.

Yes...? And? He didn't have a lobby pass, ergo, he wasn't a lobbyist.

Lol... YouGov.

And it only considers Londoners 9/10.

I sincerely hope Corbyn wins in the vote that's coming up... All your "verifiable" "truths" will then be out of the window wont they.

I'll be very surprised if Corbyn loses and indeed may even cry foul especially considering some of the things being spoken about by some local labour party groups.

You went to all that trouble of seeking the veracity of your argument when in a month or so it could all be discredited and you will likely throw the goalposts another 300ft away.

If Smith beats Corbyn in the upcoming Labour peoples vote I'll say I was wrong.

For the people also saying they like Khan more than Corbyn... Khan isn't Labour, he is merely riding their ticket. Has he not done a few u-turns already as Mayor?

 

[Mr Jack]

Why would Corbyn winning the election make anything I said false? What an odd thing to say.

I'd love to see Corbyn win a general election. It's just that all the evidence says that he won't.

 

[FishFluff]

The current poll deficit is a new-PM bounce for the Tories but we weren't ahead before that either. Labour are on course to be soundly beaten at the next general election; anything else is delusional.

Owen Smith will not do any better.

 

[jimjamuk]

So if the finger in the air predictions turn out a Corbyn win next month where are the disaffected Labour voters (assume the righter wing of the party) going to go?

Am happy to point out I've said before I'd never vote Labour regardless but we need an opposition party and this has disaster written all over it at the moment.

 

[RaohNS]

Why would Corbyn winning the election make anything I said false? What an odd thing to say.

I'd love to see Corbyn win a general election. It's just that all the evidence says that he won't.

Because, as it stands its an opinion poll... Not a fact eg (general election). All those polls can - and will I hope - be proven to be utterly worthless.

Why do you think he wont win? Is it because the press says he is a terrorist sympathizer? The sad reality is he is leading a party where 70%+ are daily scourging him. Some more openly than others.

With the backstabbers they get more Blair years, Tories more who knows what and yet Corbyn is offering an alternative. We know that austerity doesn't work as well as subsidy and investment.

I would love some poetic justice in a way to silence the haters. If he wins his next leadership challenge he should resign and close with a bombshell speech against his critics everywhere, even the little weasels on the street who glibly and incessantly swallow the media narrative, too dull and unintelligent to think for themselves.

I can see the title: The day hope died... *wipes tear (lol)

 

[Rilot]

I can see Labour splitting if Corbyn wins.

 

[Mr Jack]

Owen Smith will not do any better.

I think he will. Corbyn has shown himself unable to lead, Smith will struggle not to be better. Will he win the next election? Maybe not, but he will do less harm to Labour in the process.