[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Jolly Red Giant]

'Fury and collective depression': Jeremy Corbyn confronted by Labour MPs after election loss http://news.sky.com/story/fury-and-...ed-by-labour-mps-after-election-loss-11889356

People like Rachel 'We'll be tougher on benefits than the Tories' Reeves

I've been reading this thread and some of the other political ones. This post, like many of your others, is based on what you would like to happen rather than reality.
For you the above scenario represents last night's wet dream - strikes on that scale will never happen in this country and the rest of it is a work of fiction, just like everything else you've posted in the last month!

Unfortunately not - it is based on research and analysis - you may not agree with my analysis and that is fine - time will demonstrate who will be proved right.

As late as this morning word emerged that the first act of the Tories after the election was to attack disabled people with the DWP now having the right to instruct a doctor not to sign a medical certificate for a disabled person that the DWP deems 'fit for work'.

More attacks are on the way - and working class people will react and fight against these attacks.

I totally agree and think he’s a treacherous heinous troll who’d take great delight Ahead of anything else in seeing disorder on the streets.

Typical bullsh*t from a right-winger - I have explained this before - nobody on the left wants to see disorder on the streets. Socialists recognise that people take to the streets to vent their anger in opposition to attacks on their rights - it is the nature of capitalism that forces people into this situation. What socialists attempt to do is to give 'order' to such protests so that they are effective. The ruling elites have the forces of the state (police and army) to enforce their rule - working class people have their organisational ability to combat the attempts of the Tories to impose attacks on jobs, wages, working conditions and services.

Spot the person whose piggy backing off a Muddy Waters short selling report.

Interesting you’re prepared to agree with a hedge fund when it suits your purposes.

Naw - the hedge fund was agreeing with me - I have been saying it for a long time - and the hedge funds are like a stopped clock, they can hit on the right analysis every so often. Hedge funds view things with a very short term perspective - how can it make the maximum profit from an immediate crisis (indeed - often how can they cause a crisis so they cash in on it) - Socialists always view developments in society from a much longer perspective.

 

[wellquickwoody]

No doubt the extreme/Momentum mob won’t agree, but an extraordinarily accurate article below

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...est-us.html?ito=facebook_share_article-bottom

 

[beorhthelm]

It is well over 90% of the population - society has changed dramatically in the last 100 years - the middle layers have shrunk dramatically, farmers, shopkeepers, independently operating professionals etc. Example - my daughter is a doctor in the NHS - like all doctors in NHS hospitals she is working class, she only works for the public health system - many doctors in Ireland who work in the public health system also have private practice - they are not working class. Social class is not determined by your income but by your relationship to the economy - do you receive an salaried income or do you make profit.

what delightful mental contortion you go through. so under this definition, the CEO of a listed company is working class (paid a salary) but a self employed trader is not (reports a accounts with profit). and a doctor is working class on days they work on NHS contract, but not on days they work on private practice. i wonder if they switch from ale to chardonnay after work to reflect this?

 

[Swansman]

People like Rachel 'We'll be tougher on benefits than the Tories' Reeves


Unfortunately not - it is based on research and analysis - you may not agree with my analysis and that is fine - time will demonstrate who will be proved right.

As late as this morning word emerged that the first act of the Tories after the election was to attack disabled people with the DWP now having the right to instruct a doctor not to sign a medical certificate for a disabled person that the DWP deems 'fit for work'.

More attacks are on the way - and working class people will react and fight against these attacks.


Typical bullsh*t from a right-winger - I have explained this before - nobody on the left wants to see disorder on the streets. Socialists recognise that people take to the streets to vent their anger in opposition to attacks on their rights - it is the nature of capitalism that forces people into this situation. What socialists attempt to do is to give 'order' to such protests so that they are effective. The ruling elites have the forces of the state (police and army) to enforce their rule - working class people have their organisational ability to combat the attempts of the Tories to impose attacks on jobs, wages, working conditions and services.


Naw - the hedge fund was agreeing with me - I have been saying it for a long time - and the hedge funds are like a stopped clock, they can hit on the right analysis every so often. Hedge funds view things with a very short term perspective - how can it make the maximum profit from an immediate crisis (indeed - often how can they cause a crisis so they cash in on it) - Socialists always view developments in society from a much longer perspective.

While you, for once, have a few decent points I'd like to say that an considerable amount of the extreme left - or as I'd like to call it "the justifiably violent left" - are indeed pretty keen on chaos on the streets, the thought being "you create a shit society so we destroy it". At least this is the case in most of the world. In heavily Orwellian states like China or the UK this might not be as common.

Also the notion that socialists "always" do this or that is pretty far from the truth. A lot of so called socialists mainly care about ****ing other socialists or flashing their good morale. I'd say the general socialist are pretty flawed in thinking long term, a lot is about "what is the morale cake of today" etc. Nah, the elite/bourgeois classes are a lot better at this. Great at understanding what needs to be done in order to turn people into consumption robots. The proof: they run society and have done so most of the time since forever meaning they are obviously doing something strategically correct.

 

[blue-shifted]

You forgot IRA collaborator.

Contrary to the views of diehard Corbynistas and those who were too young to have lived through the Troubles, many do still remember that and are sickened by it....

Could you post again to confirm you're still happy with your use of this word?

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Blair was a good moderate left leaning PM but what really was the lasting legacy of that spell of Labour control? Brown sold a stack of gold on Groupon, it seemed like we had war after bloody war and the lack of financial astuteness really came home to roost in the last Labour term of office.

 

[blue-shifted]

Yes. An odd and ill judged comparison to make by the poster you quote. They clearly dislike Corbyn but why lie about qualities he has when there are so many he hasn’t!

Here are a few:

1. Lack of self awareness.
2. Lack of concern with image.
3. An idealogue.
4. Disabled by principles.
5. Inability to lead a party.
6. Inability to win an election.
7. Inability to install discipline in a party.
8. No new ideas (follows failed socialist dogma of the past rather than embrace new ideas).

Not all of these are fair

1. Lack of self awareness. What makes you say this comment in particular?
2. Lack of concern with image. Agree. He think’s there are other things more important.
3. An idealogue. He has ideals. Positive thing
4. Disabled by principles. He has principles. Boris hasn’t. Fairer to say you disagree with those principles
5. Inability to lead a party. His biggest flaw. Difficult ask to straddle the competing interests on Brexit, but should have done far better at stamping out antisemitism
6. Inability to win an election. Well clearly, though many other Labour leaders have failed here as well
7. Inability to install discipline in a party. Yes. He would argue that he tried to allow a consensual approach, but the lack of coherence didn’t play well
8. No new ideas (follows failed socialist dogma of the past rather than embrace new ideas) Plenty have said he had too many new ideas. He is and was a socialist. He was elected on that platform. Not enough people wanted that

As for the IRA thing

Agree this cost him. His world view is based around admiration of uprisings and revolutions by ordinary people against powerful governments and is prepared to turn a blind eye to violence to achieve this. This is a whole other massive conversation about when this is justified and when it isn’t, Arab Spring, Mandela etc. But I think he is fairly consistent in the way he applies this belief.

Personally I'd follow someone with a strong belief system which didn't match mine rather than someone who doesn't have strong beliefs other than in their personal ambition. I'm in a minority I suppose

 

[Hugo Rune]

You forgot IRA collaborator.

Contrary to the views of diehard Corbynistas and those who were too young to have lived through the Troubles, many do still remember that and are sickened by it....

I think the word collaborator is wrong. The implication is that he worked with the IRA to achieve their aim of achieving a United Ireland through terrorism and violence. That’s collaboration and it’s totally untrue.

He is and was a pacifist sympathetic to an oppressed minority and open to the idea of a United Ireland. His trail blazing method of talking to the enemy was copied by the Tories and then the Blair government achieving peace on that Island.

He is a righteous campaigner driven by immovable principles, this makes him profoundly unfit for the office of PM.

 

[Chicken Run]

I am looking forward to reading the musings of new poster Jolly Blue Giant in about twenty years time.....

More like 40 years time.....

 

[blue-shifted]

Blair was a good moderate left leaning PM but what really was the lasting legacy of that spell of Labour control? Brown sold a stack of gold on Groupon, it seemed like we had war after bloody war and the lack of financial astuteness really came home to roost in the last Labour term of office.

And Blair couldn't control the factions of the party any more than Corbyn could. The whole time was the blairites v the brownites

I've actually got time for them both in different ways so not criticising.

The party in general though, jeez, it's so Popular Front of Judea. Starmer has come out and said something quite sensible along the lines of we won't unite the labour party by one side conquering the other.

Someone, maybe him I don't know, has to talk to get the union leaders, the momentum lot, some key members of the PLP around a table and reach some compromises. The party has to stick to them and the party has to start speaking with one voice again. Whilst it remains that factionalised, there is absolutely no chance of regaining power.

 

[blue-shifted]

I think the word collaborator is wrong. The implication is that he worked with the IRA to achieve their aim of achieving a United Ireland through terrorism and violence. That’s collaboration and it’s totally untrue.

He is and was a pacifist sympathetic to an oppressed minority and open to the idea of a United Ireland. His trail blazing method of talking to the enemy was copied by the Tories and then the Blair government achieving peace on that Island.

He is a righteous campaigner driven by immovable principles, this makes him profoundly unfit for the office of PM.

The word is a very strong one which is now routinely used by him and others by the right wing press. No wonder people have started to believe it

 

[blue-shifted]

I think the word collaborator is wrong. The implication is that he worked with the IRA to achieve their aim of achieving a United Ireland through terrorism and violence. That’s collaboration and it’s totally untrue.

He is and was a pacifist sympathetic to an oppressed minority and open to the idea of a United Ireland. His trail blazing method of talking to the enemy was copied by the Tories and then the Blair government achieving peace on that Island.

He is a righteous campaigner driven by immovable principles, this makes him profoundly unfit for the office of PM.

Surely some of the best political leaders in history have had immovable principles?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Emily Thornberry has just 'thrown her hat in the ring'. Really wouldn't bother luv, the minute you sneered at white van man in Rochester for his Ingerland flag, you lost all credibility. Go work in a cake shop or something

 

[Chicken Run]

Emily Thornberry has just 'thrown her hat in the ring'. Really wouldn't bother luv, the minute you sneered at white van man in Rochester for his Ingerland flag, you lost all credibility. Go work in a cake shop or something

That was her was it? Oh dear , I have the feeling that she smells of body odour [emoji2961]

 

[Hugo Rune]

Surely some of the best political leaders in history have had immovable principles?

Of course you need some principles or you are just end up being Boris Johnson.

You must have leadership, compromise and strategic thinking too.

The best way of introducing some socialist principles into government is slowly starting from the centre. Corbyn was not able to understand that sort of strategic planning and patience. He wanted a minor socialist revolution and if that desire continues with the next leader, we're going to have a Tory government for at least the next 10 or 15 years creating the sort of hateful society Thatcher produced in the 80's.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I think the word collaborator is wrong. The implication is that he worked with the IRA to achieve their aim of achieving a United Ireland through terrorism and violence. That’s collaboration and it’s totally untrue.

He is and was a pacifist sympathetic to an oppressed minority and open to the idea of a United Ireland. His trail blazing method of talking to the enemy was copied by the Tories and then the Blair government achieving peace on that Island.

He is a righteous campaigner driven by immovable principles, this makes him profoundly unfit for the office of PM.

He is and was sympathetic to any cause where he could side against the UK,US,Israel or NATO. His trailblazing method of only ever talking to the side he supported made f all difference to anything.

He is a far-left activist driven by antiquated dogma, this makes him profoundly unfit for the office of PM.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Of course you need some principles or you are just end up being Boris Johnson.

You must have leadership, compromise and strategic thinking too.

Tho sometimes the tactic that works best is the simplest and the crudest. Hence Johnson. And especially Thatcher.

 

[Insel affe]

Emily Thornberry has just 'thrown her hat in the ring'. Really wouldn't bother luv, the minute you sneered at white van man in Rochester for his Ingerland flag, you lost all credibility. Go work in a cake shop or something

This....

I think she is a sneaky little **** and would tend to believe Caroline Flint, I think "threatening" to sue a fellow member is a smoke shield and covers the real story, she is a massive part of the Labour problem. The champagne rich socialists living in their million pound houses, in their safe hipster seats in London, thinking the real working class labour voters in the north and midlands are stupid because they voted leave.... Listen to their concerns and then approach them, talk to them, not ignore them and hope another referendum will go their way and they won't have to admit people are unhappy and concerned about stuff outside London....

Don't trust her, and if she became leader, that would push me further away from Labour.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...deny-claim-she-called-voters-stupid-rtxfvv63n

 

[BLOCK F]

Agree about Clive Lewis, he'd be a terrible choice.

Worse even than RLB who will ensure 10 years of Tory Government.

Starmer for me.

Tory voter here.
Not sure about Starmer; I have to admit I don't know much about him, but he just comes over as a bit wishy-washy to me and I'm not convinced of his leadership qualities. I've read a brief summary of his Guardian interview and I have doubts that he is the person to lead Labour out of the grip of the far left and make them electable again.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

And Blair couldn't control the factions of the party any more than Corbyn could. The whole time was the blairites v the brownites

I've actually got time for them both in different ways so not criticising.

The party in general though, jeez, it's so Popular Front of Judea. Starmer has come out and said something quite sensible along the lines of we won't unite the labour party by one side conquering the other.

Someone, maybe him I don't know, has to talk to get the union leaders, the momentum lot, some key members of the PLP around a table and reach some compromises. The party has to stick to them and the party has to start speaking with one voice again. Whilst it remains that factionalised, there is absolutely no chance of regaining power.

You're right, the power in the party isn't the leader it's momentum (& was the Union leaders)