[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Titanic]

I am strongly recommending Rebecca Long-Bailey with no second preference and Richard Burgon with Dawn Butler as 2nd preference. Firstly their voting records in parliament put the other candidates to shame. Secondly I believe they represent the best electoral chance for Labour with radical policies to reverse the endless damage done by austerity, neo liberalism and global warming (and they're not southern remainers, increasing the chance to win back the leave voters), when Labour went for it and didn't try to appease the remainers and Blairites they nearly snatched the election inspite of them. In 2019 we lost because of the rights persistent undermining of the Corbyn and his supporters, they spent 4 years scheming and spewing out crap about Corbyn and failed to spend anytime trying to beat the Tories, then they (with Starmer as lead advocate) reversed Labour's policy of respecting the referendum result and push for a deal that won't harm working class people, to a call for a second referendum that was always going to lead to defeat in the election. They basically told half the population that a democratic promise means nothing. In the end instead of mitigating Brexit to make something good of it we are at the mercy of some right nasty characters who have no interest in the needs of working class people. Thirdly look at the two faced schemers*and back stabbers that support the other candidates (both Nandy and Starmer were coup participants) as well as the big financial backers.
Finally and most importantly I believe a victory for any of the others will signal the end of the project to attempt to try and dramatically change the direction of Britain (and the world). An end to Labours plans to redress the massive imbalances in our society. A victory for Starmer and Nandy (both talk left and of unity in the same way Owen Smith did) will mean a return to the Labour Party that shed principles faster than it could drop bombs on the middle east and academize our schools.
I'm just burying my head in the Sanders campaign now.

The audience for the Sky Labour Leadership debate voted a Nandy landslide.

Still, I am sure the Leftwaffe know best.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Apart from the Blair inaccuracy, he was not unpleasant to those who worked for him.

He also introduced 'Dignity at Work - Standards of behaviour in the Crown Prosecution Service' at the CPS.

Good article last weekend end about how his DPP role may play out in the media. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny

 

[Gwylan]

It does go to show how politics is shaped by our impression of someone. Starmer may well be a full on Corbyn-eque left winger in his ideology, but his outward appearance convinces everyone he must be a centrist Blairite. He's not said anything so far to suggest he would stray too far from the 2017 manifesto, and is if anything positioning himself slightly left of Ed Milliband. Perhaps it's the professional background that he must be far more right than he actually is....that maybe why he is proving popular, because a leader that appears moderate while taking the core of the party's principles with him maybe exactly what Labour need.

At the end of the day, many people don't get into things too deeply. Very few people read manifestos. Many just want to look at someone and feel they could be led by them, and many couldn't get passed that with Corbyn. People can say what they want about the red wall, Brexit, the manifesto, there were just too many ordinary working class people who couldn't look at Corbyn and see someone that would inspire them and lead them.

Starmer doesn't really need to stray too far from the 2017 manifesto, what he does need to do is reshape what leadership is for the party, Corbyn felt he had strength in listening, compromising, but it was also seen as a weakness. If there is anything to learn from Blair, it's professionalism. He looked ready to lead, his team looked ready to lead. Forget the actual policies for a second, that is what the next leader needs to establish.

This is spot on - I really don't see Starmer as a right-winger (in Labour terms). I saw him as the more centrist of the three candidates, with Nandy on the right and RLB on the left and certainly someone to keep most of the 2017 pledges (forget the 2019 manifesto, that was a big mistake).

The Miliband analogy is a good one, I see them operating in a similar political landscape but there are key differences, Starmer doesn't have a foreign name and a Marxist parent; he's had a job outside politics (and a high-flying one at that) and I bet he can eat a bacon sandwich properly.

Incidentally, it wouldn't shock me to see Miliband back in a Starmer shadow cabinet - he's a bright bloke who's wasted on the back benches.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

To be fair I mistakenly took your post as from the hard left when I quoted you. Please accept my apologies.

Cheer, mate.

It wasn't my post to which you were referring, though, I don't think, unless my mind is further gone that hitherto suspected.

No worries

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I watched the Sky debate last night. Starmer was wrongfooted a couple of times and lost a bit of composure. Nandy was the winner for me. Long-Bailey wasn't quite a wooden as usual. But, like the Tory leadership contest, this has gone on too long.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am strongly recommending Rebecca Long-Bailey with no second preference and Richard Burgon with Dawn Butler as 2nd preference. Firstly their voting records in parliament put the other candidates to shame. Secondly I believe they represent the best electoral chance for Labour with radical policies to reverse the endless damage done by austerity, neo liberalism and global warming (and they're not southern remainers, increasing the chance to win back the leave voters), when Labour went for it and didn't try to appease the remainers and Blairites they nearly snatched the election inspite of them. In 2019 we lost because of the rights persistent undermining of the Corbyn and his supporters, they spent 4 years scheming and spewing out crap about Corbyn and failed to spend anytime trying to beat the Tories, then they (with Starmer as lead advocate) reversed Labour's policy of respecting the referendum result and push for a deal that won't harm working class people, to a call for a second referendum that was always going to lead to defeat in the election. They basically told half the population that a democratic promise means nothing. In the end instead of mitigating Brexit to make something good of it we are at the mercy of some right nasty characters who have no interest in the needs of working class people. Thirdly look at the two faced schemers*and back stabbers that support the other candidates (both Nandy and Starmer were coup participants) as well as the big financial backers.
Finally and most importantly I believe a victory for any of the others will signal the end of the project to attempt to try and dramatically change the direction of Britain (and the world). An end to Labours plans to redress the massive imbalances in our society. A victory for Starmer and Nandy (both talk left and of unity in the same way Owen Smith did) will mean a return to the Labour Party that shed principles faster than it could drop bombs on the middle east and academize our schools.
I'm just burying my head in the Sanders campaign now.

I am sure you hold these views sincerely, but you are completely wrong.

Even with a media owned entirely by Owen Oyston (remember him and his socialist tabloid?) and workers' collectives, Corbyn would still have lost.

If Labour's policy on Brexit was weak and wrong, that's Corbyn's fault:

1. If he did not believe in his own policy he should have resigned.

2. If he didn't believe in his policy but carried it because his party 'forced' him, it is still his fault for bringing in the 'powerless leader doing the bidding of conference' management.

3. If he didn't believe in his policy but was forced into it by a tiny minority of traitor right wing labour MPs 'such as Starmer' then he and the labour party are weak and pathetic, allowing themselves to be overrun by a minority right wing faction.

This is of course all bollocks. Labour's policies were what they were because of Corbyn. Labour lost the election because of Corbyn.

And don't get me started on antisemitism. Someone close to me is adept at explaining why labour is innocent in this regard, how the facts were twisted etc etc. Then, ten minutes, later he will be in full flow, going on about that 'rogue state', Israel and its brutal treatment of the Palestinians. Yes, some elements of the old left can be very one-eyed about racism. Unfortunately for them, those of us with two eyes can see this, and are disgusted.

And it does not matter how much you Corbyn fan-boys go on and on: we lifelong labour voters who despised Militant and who regard what we see of momentum with concern, will not vote labour if Corbyn's followers prevail. I did vote labour last time, but holding my nose. I'm hoping it will be a lot easier next time - if Starmer wins.

Luckily the 'Corbyn interviews Wrong Bailey' interview, clips of which were played on the radio today, will probably bang the final nail in the cyberwoman's coffin.

Starmer is the only hope if we are to avoid another 10 years of tory misrule.

But....you carry on, mate.

 

[Weststander]

It does go to show how politics is shaped by our impression of someone. Starmer may well be a full on Corbyn-eque left winger in his ideology, but his outward appearance convinces everyone he must be a centrist Blairite. He's not said anything so far to suggest he would stray too far from the 2017 manifesto, and is if anything positioning himself slightly left of Ed Milliband. Perhaps it's the professional background that he must be far more right than he actually is....that maybe why he is proving popular, because a leader that appears moderate while taking the core of the party's principles with him maybe exactly what Labour need.

At the end of the day, many people don't get into things too deeply. Very few people read manifestos. Many just want to look at someone and feel they could be led by them, and many couldn't get passed that with Corbyn. People can say what they want about the red wall, Brexit, the manifesto, there were just too many ordinary working class people who couldn't look at Corbyn and see someone that would inspire them and lead them.

Starmer doesn't really need to stray too far from the 2017 manifesto, what he does need to do is reshape what leadership is for the party, Corbyn felt he had strength in listening, compromising, but it was also seen as a weakness. If there is anything to learn from Blair, it's professionalism. He looked ready to lead, his team looked ready to lead. Forget the actual policies for a second, that is what the next leader needs to establish.

Very true about manifestos. I make the effort to look up those of the two main parties (not the waffle, but definitive policies eg taxation) and The Green Party's as I'm in Pavilion. It was one of the attractions to me in 1997 of Blair's Labour … the promise of Commons vote on fox hunting, I wanted it banned.

I doubt the vast majority of voters have ever glanced at them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is spot on - I really don't see Starmer as a right-winger (in Labour terms). I saw him as the more centrist of the three candidates, with Nandy on the right and RLB on the left and certainly someone to keep most of the 2017 pledges (forget the 2019 manifesto, that was a big mistake).

The Miliband analogy is a good one, I see them operating in a similar political landscape but there are key differences, Starmer doesn't have a foreign name and a Marxist parent; he's had a job outside politics (and a high-flying one at that) and I bet he can eat a bacon sandwich properly.

Incidentally, it wouldn't shock me to see Miliband back in a Starmer shadow cabinet - he's a bright bloke who's wasted on the back benches.

My suspicion is Starmer is being judicious about how much of labour's recent past he supports. Once he becomes leader I suspect he will select the policies that are appropriate (for a party of the left to win). I don't think Starmer has revealed his true colours yet.

The only thing that concerns me about him at the moment may seem trivial, but people are affected by subliminals; he has something in common with Tyson Fury. They both have strange tiny voices that don't sit well with their stature. You will recall that Thatcher actually took steps (on advice) to remedy her own vocal shortcomings (it was shrillness in her case).

 

[highflyer]

It may as well be Basil Brushes snowflake bi-curious non specific grand daughter-son-thing. . . . It'll make **** all difference for at least 3 years, probably 5, and maybe 10!

My view is that this is both true, and not true.

The obession with 'electability' does seem premature - can't see much opportunity to test that for a few years.

On the other hand, leadership will be critical in other ways over the next few years - I want to hear how Labour will rebuild it's connections and relevance at local level, create mechanisms to communicate with people in a way that can circumvent the billionaire press, build on the internal democratization process that has been started etc. This is all more important in my view than anyone's hair or (relatively minor) policy differences.

One thing I would put money on - the next election will have a very different flavour to the last one. Four or five years is always a long time in politics. But these next few years may be centuries in political terms (as the last three years have been).

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

My suspicion is Starmer is being judicious about how much of labour's recent past he supports. Once he becomes leader I suspect he will select the policies that are appropriate (for a party of the left to win). I don't think Starmer has revealed his true colours yet.

The only thing that concerns me about him at the moment may seem trivial, but people are affected by subliminals; he has something in common with Tyson Fury. They both have strange tiny voices that don't sit well with their stature. You will recall that Thatcher actually took steps (on advice) to remedy her own vocal shortcomings (it was shrillness in her case).

I think I preferred Maggie the strident milk-snatcher to Maggie the husky-voiced seductress. (But better still, no Maggie at all.)

 

[highflyer]

My suspicion is Starmer is being judicious about how much of labour's recent past he supports...I don't think Starmer has revealed his true colours yet

Yes, I also have question mark in my mind about how trustworthy he really is.

And this is what might incline me towards another candidate who's integrity cannot be questioned.

 

[SockMonster]

My suspicion is Starmer is being judicious about how much of labour's recent past he supports. Once he becomes leader I suspect he will select the policies that are appropriate (for a party of the left to win). I don't think Starmer has revealed his true colours yet.

The only thing that concerns me about him at the moment may seem trivial, but people are affected by subliminals; he has something in common with Tyson Fury. They both have strange tiny voices that don't sit well with their stature. You will recall that Thatcher actually took steps (on advice) to remedy her own vocal shortcomings (it was shrillness in her case).

As it happens I understand that he is currently working on his presentation skills etc

 

[Chicken Run]

As it happens I understand that he is currently working on his presentation skills etc

He needs to as compared to Lisa Nandy he’s a mouse.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As it happens I understand that he is currently working on his presentation skills etc

Yep, I'm sure a barrister, a QC, who has been in court many, many times, presenting cases to a jury, has to work on his presentation skills.

 

[BenGarfield]

I am sure you hold these views sincerely, but you are completely wrong.

Even with a media owned entirely by Owen Oyston (remember him and his socialist tabloid?) and workers' collectives, Corbyn would still have lost.

If Labour's policy on Brexit was weak and wrong, that's Corbyn's fault:

1. If he did not believe in his own policy he should have resigned.

2. If he didn't believe in his policy but carried it because his party 'forced' him, it is still his fault for bringing in the 'powerless leader doing the bidding of conference' management.

3. If he didn't believe in his policy but was forced into it by a tiny minority of traitor right wing labour MPs 'such as Starmer' then he and the labour party are weak and pathetic, allowing themselves to be overrun by a minority right wing faction.

This is of course all bollocks. Labour's policies were what they were because of Corbyn. Labour lost the election because of Corbyn.

And don't get me started on antisemitism. Someone close to me is adept at explaining why labour is innocent in this regard, how the facts were twisted etc etc. Then, ten minutes, later he will be in full flow, going on about that 'rogue state', Israel and its brutal treatment of the Palestinians. Yes, some elements of the old left can be very one-eyed about racism. Unfortunately for them, those of us with two eyes can see this, and are disgusted.

And it does not matter how much you Corbyn fan-boys go on and on: we lifelong labour voters who despised Militant and who regard what we see of momentum with concern, will not vote labour if Corbyn's followers prevail. I did vote labour last time, but holding my nose. I'm hoping it will be a lot easier next time - if Starmer wins.

Luckily the 'Corbyn interviews Wrong Bailey' interview, clips of which were played on the radio today, will probably bang the final nail in the cyberwoman's coffin.

Starmer is the only hope if we are to avoid another 10 years of tory misrule.

But....you carry on, mate.

I want to get you started on anti-semitism. Can you explain why you believe critism of israel is antisemitic? I think your friend is entirely correct - and so too does the Jewish leading contender for the Democratic party nomination in the USA, whose relatives suffered in the holocaust, when he in a recent democratic contenders debate in south Carolina, stated that,

“I actually lived in Israel for some months. But what I happen to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel through Bibi Netanyahu you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country,” he added.

Mr Sanders said Israel’s independence and security should be protected, but that “you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people.”

Do you think that if Sanders was a member of the Labour party he should be expelled for anti-semitism?

 

[Gwylan]

You will recall that Thatcher actually took steps (on advice) to remedy her own vocal shortcomings (it was shrillness in her case).

Don't I know it. The guru who reshaped her public image and insisted on vocal coaching was a guy called Gordon Reece. For reasons that are complex to go into, my sister was living in his house in 1978 and I wasn't allowed to visit her as I was seen as a dangerous leftie who may have spotted how he was trying to remake Thatcher.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yep, I'm sure a barrister, a QC, who has been in court many, many times, presenting cases to a jury, has to work on his presentation skills.

Selling yourself to the public as a potential prime minister is very different from doing a dry day job in chambers and committee rooms. I have given thousands of lectures to students and research folk, but my presentation skills in other contexts were (perhaps still are) rubbish, and I did two bouts of media training when I was on the executive of my professional organization. Starmer will certainly get coached. All sensible organisations train their public facing people. That said, I can certainly see momentum labour eschewing such bourgoise frippery but, even so, someone appears to have told Corbyn to cut his hair, keep his beard nicely trimmed and wear a tie

 

[SockMonster]

Yep, I'm sure a barrister, a QC, who has been in court many, many times, presenting cases to a jury, has to work on his presentation skills.

Nevertheless i know he is working on the way he presents himself. It is one thing standing up in court and talking to a jury/judge etc and I would suggest quite another standing in front of the nation and asking for its approval. The former is largely a technical exercise that needs enormous clarity and preparation (something that has surely helped him massively in his political career of course), the latter is much more about impression, as well as technical skill etc. The public are in my opinion, very impressionable. We are affected by how someone looks and sounds as much as by what they say.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I want to get you started on anti-semitism. Can you explain why you believe critism of israel is antisemitic? I think your friend is entirely correct - and so too does the Jewish leading contender for the Democratic party nomination in the USA, whose relatives suffered in the holocaust, when he in a recent democratic contenders debate in south Carolina, stated that,

“I actually lived in Israel for some months. But what I happen to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel through Bibi Netanyahu you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country,” he added.

Mr Sanders said Israel’s independence and security should be protected, but that “you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people.”

Do you think that if Sanders was a member of the Labour party he should be expelled for anti-semitism?

I absolutely do not think that criticism of Israel is antisemitic and never said that. I would say that if I had to join some queues for criticising nation states, there are a few other queues I'd join before I'd move on to Israel. For example, Syria, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia.....And to be honest, if you can find anywhere on NSC me getting especially exercised about any of these nations I'd be surprised. I'm mostly focused on things I can affect, like the UK.

My issue with labour and antisemitism is that Corbyn didn't deal with the accusations, as part of the general impression Corbyn labour gave of being clunky and head-in-the-sandy. That said there were certainly examples of people in labour conflating the state of Israel with the people of Israel and with Jews. Corbyn simply didn't deal with this.

Of course I agree that Bibi is a reactionary racist. I have loathed him for decades. I would add liar, crook and criminal. But that is not enough for me to cheer every time Palestinians set off a rocket or bomb, like some people do.

Of course I don't think that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. But I do worry about people who will share a platform with militant Islamists but who wouldn't be seen dead sharing a platform with an Israeli spokesman. And I worry about people who still say (to my face) that all the problems in the middle east, from the Saudi tyranny of its own people (especially the women) through to Isis are all the result of the existence of the state of Israel. One particular person I have in mind is a fierce critic of Israel in this context, and a fierce Corbyn suppoter.

Of course I don't believe the labour party is institutionally antisemitic. I just believe that under Corbyn it was useless at dealing with the issue of antisemitism. Hopefully that and some other things will change soon.

 

[Comrade Sam]

I did vote labour last time, but holding my nose. I'm hoping it will be a lot easier next time - if Starmer wins.

This is precisely where you're coming from. Holding your nose to vote for a party with principles. Did you hold your nose voting Labour when they were bombing the middle East into the stone age, or turning our schools into academies, or unleashing PFI on our hospitals, or asbos on our children. Some of us couldn't bare to rubber stamp that sort of behaviour and so Labour suddenly representing an alternative inspired hundreds of thousands to join and nearly win a general election inspite of the Chicken Coup by the PLP. And I'm a Jew that has applauded Corbyn's defence of the the Palestinians.