The New Leader of the Labour Party

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Tony Moanero said:

Plenty of people don’t think think for themselves though, do they? Herd mentality. Sheep blindly following the flock.

I wouldn't judge them that harshly; in fact, I probably shouldn't refer to "them" at all. It's us. All humans are susceptible to biases, suggestion and flawed reasoning. 

 

In every way, Labour’s manifesto would have made life better for everyone  (except those in the centre of a Venn diagram of "very rich" and "utterly immoral") but never managed to distil the key points - especially Brexit policy - into messages simple enough to cut through.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

38 minutes ago, moof said:

100%. One of my fears with all the rhetoric about labour needing to “win back it’s heartlands” and “appeal to working class leave voters” is that it’s a code for “be more racist”

Whoever the new leader is, we must not return to the days of "Control immigration" mugs.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

34 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

There was only one leader saying that in the TV debates, sadly, and it wasn't Corbyn. 

Jimmy Stewart? All I heard of her was attacking labour on fraudulent accounts of anti-semitism, everything else was lost in the noise.

[The Guest]

“Pointing out the lies” is just more of the same stuff though and it’s what these people are sick off because it’s backed up with stuff that people don’t believe.  Everyone knows the NHS is being underfunded along with most other public services.  When liberals point out that EU immigrant pay more tax in than they take out we are all meant to clap along but that doesn’t take into account so many other things.  What about how busy the roads are or the trains going into towns and city centre?  You can’t build more roads going into Liverpool for example yet it takes an hour plus driving into town during rush hour from most suburbs and it gets worse every year.  The trains get busier and busier by the month.  At some point the extra number of people mean you need to build new hospitals and schools.  How do you account for that? It’s too difficult.

 

There are obviously going to be a load of racists who just don’t want more brown people in the country. It doesn’t stop unlimited immigration potentially being a bad thing for a country.  To just label anyone who thinks that racist is stupid and causes people to just close up and become even more single minded in their views.  This idea that they’re just wrong and what we need to do is just explain to them better why they’re wrong is laughable.

 

I think the best way to explain it would be to say how would you feel if 100m people moved to the UK in the next decade or so?  If you think rationally it would cripple the country and everybody in the country would be against It happening.  Now obviously that number is too high and would never happen but as you drop that number less people would be completely against but everybody would have their point where they think it’s too high.  I think the EU have had people brainwashed with this freedom of movement thing being completely positive and it’s the main driver of the far right across Europe.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

1 minute ago, The Guest said:

“Pointing out the lies” is just more of the same stuff though and it’s what these people are sick off because it’s backed up with stuff that people don’t believe.  Everyone knows the NHS is being underfunded along with most other public services.  When liberals point out that EU immigrant pay more tax in than they take out we are all meant to clap along but that doesn’t take into account so many other things.  What about how busy the roads are or the trains going into towns and city centre?  You can’t build more roads going into Liverpool for example yet it takes an hour plus driving into town during rush hour from most suburbs and it gets worse every year.  The trains get busier and busier by the month.  At some point the extra number of people mean you need to build new hospitals and schools.  How do you account for that? It’s too difficult.

 

There are obviously going to be a load of racists who just don’t want more brown people in the country. It doesn’t stop unlimited immigration potentially being a bad thing for a country.  To just label anyone who thinks that racist is stupid and causes people to just close up and become even more single minded in their views.  This idea that they’re just wrong and what we need to do is just explain to them better why they’re wrong is laughable.

 

I think the best way to explain it would be to say how would you feel if 100m people moved to the UK in the next decade or so?  If you think rationally it would cripple the country and everybody in the country would be against It happening.  Now obviously that number is too high and would never happen but as you drop that number less people would be completely against but everybody would have their point where they think it’s too high.  I think the EU have had people brainwashed with this freedom of movement thing being completely positive and it’s the main driver of the far right across Europe.

then you explain the issue clearly, and define how the issue with unfettered migration from the EU came about, and that it could be fixed within or without the EU, but what you don't do is demonise those who are already there.

Corbyn had the right policies to deal with it, he just needed someone with teeth to point it out and bully and harass, very reminiscent of mid 90's liverpool, doing a lot of the right things, but just lacking the bit of spark and anger to get across the line. meanwhile shitehawks redefine the rules.

[The Guest]

Just now, arthur friedenreich said:

then you explain the issue clearly, and define how the issue with unfettered migration from the EU came about, and that it could be fixed within or without the EU, but what you don't do is demonise those who are already there.

Corbyn had the right policies to deal with it, he just needed someone with teeth to point it out and bully and harass, very reminiscent of mid 90's liverpool, doing a lot of the right things, but just lacking the bit of spark and anger to get across the line. meanwhile shitehawks redefine the rules.

It couldn’t be fixed within the EU.  I think you’d be daft to think that.  The demonising of people already here is ridiculous though I agree with that.  Nobody should have a problem with any individual wanting to better their own life by coming here.  They haven’t broken any laws by doing it either.  It’s not their fault or immigration policy is what it is.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

31 minutes ago, The Guest said:

It couldn’t be fixed within the EU.  I think you’d be daft to think that.  The demonising of people already here is ridiculous though I agree with that.  Nobody should have a problem with any individual wanting to better their own life by coming here.  They haven’t broken any laws by doing it either.  It’s not their fault or immigration policy is what it is.

It could have been fixed within the EU, caps could have been set, Blair and co chose not to. They could still have been set at any point following the banking collapse.

[Red Phoenix]

5 hours ago, The Guest said:

There are obviously going to be a load of racists who just don’t want more brown people in the country. It doesn’t stop unlimited immigration potentially being a bad thing for a country.  To just label anyone who thinks that racist is stupid and causes people to just close up and become even more single minded in their views.  This idea that they’re just wrong and what we need to do is just explain to them better why they’re wrong is laughable.

 

Sanders has been against open borders in the US too. I think Corbyn would've maybe had similar views, although it would've just been twisted if he'd said what he thought, similar to how it would've probably been twisted if he'd explained how he saw the EU in general.

 

Quote

"Open borders?" he interjected. "No, that's a Koch brothers proposal." The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. "I think from a moral responsibility, we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty," he conceded, "but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer."

 

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9048401/bernie-sanders-open-borders

 

I'd prefer us to be multicultural so we just get used to eachother and fuck the racism off eventually. People actually pouring into the country though can only be stopped if we stop destroying other countries around the world. War machine needs cash though so doubt that's happening any time soon.

[Karl_b]

21 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Yes,that is unfortunately how it works. What right wing parties do is cut back on public funded education because well educated(or at least educated to a good median level) see Scandanavian countries,are those people most likely to understand the nuances and context of what is actually happening. There was a superb documentary on Netflix not long ago (cannot remember its name) where Noam Chomsky listed the 10 or 12 steps to make ordinary people vote against their own best interests. It was largely about the USA but could equally be applied to many other countries especially the UK.

I left school in the early 1980s and it was very rare that most kids could not at least read or write and have a basic level of numeracy too. Now it seems there are many more that don't have any of these and that is extremely sad as these are people who are either apathetic about politics or very malleable and can be easily controlled by extremists, such as the people who fund and run the tory party. And before you get on your high horse about my use of the word 'extremists' not all extremists have swastika tattoos and skinheads,the very worst wear thousand dollar suits and sit behind desks and think purely in terms of money and self interest and have little interest in human lives outside of their own and their nearest and dearest.

Have you got some evidence to back up your claims on literacy and numeracy? There are things wrong with the current school system but, from experience of living with a teacher, I don't think reading, writing and numeracy are some of them.

[Jairzinho]

Yes, we'd be better off if people couldn't read.

[Spy Bee]

There is a distinction between supporting controlled immigration and being racist. People think that Labour policy is just open doors, and it's not, but they have failed to convey their policy in a way that has allayed people's fears. 

[Dr Nowt]

There’s what is said to be informed talk that January 20th will likely be the cutoff for new members eligible to vote in the leadership contest.

 

No idea if the previous arrangement of being able to register only to vote for a few quid will remain in place, for anyone wanting to make sure they get a say.

[Denny Crane]

11 hours ago, moof said:

100%. One of my fears with all the rhetoric about labour needing to “win back it’s heartlands” and “appeal to working class leave voters” is that it’s a code for “be more racist”

 

I understand the caution but it doesn't have to be that way. We could look at some towns that voted leave where the Labour vote held up or didn't fall apart and look at some of the differences. One of the big changes in smaller towns is the young leave to get a University education or chase jobs don't come back as there are no jobs in the towns and the towns get older. This has had a bigger effect due to the increase of young people entering education from 2000 onwards. My view is all the solutions were in the manifesto, investment banks, nationalisation, coops a focus on loneliness, high streets and facilities etc that could have made a difference but people didnt trust Labour for a few reasons. If you said in 2017 you would respect the vote now you don't  how do we know you will do...

 

One point that seems to have been made is i have a Labour council a Labour MP and i have voted Labour for 30 years and my area is dying - why should i give you my vote. The intial response is Tory cuts to local council budgets but what if the picture is more complex - consider some of these points. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Denny Crane]

I mentioned a while back i was worried if Labour were perceived as stopping Brexit it could have an impact similar to what happened to the Lib Dems. What if Labour leavers or some others view Labour how people viewed the Lib Dems who went back on their word. Two elections on and they are way down on their seats under Kennedy and Clegg. They have struggled to gain the trust of voters and many don't even give them a hearing. Labour opposing Brexit will be hammered home like the false claim Labour fucked the economy if the Conservative government think it will cause damage. We need to make sure we can answer this. 

[Spy Bee]

All but four of the seats Labour lost were in Leave constituencies. The other 4 were marginals won in 2017.

[Colonel Bumcunt]

3 answers, for different reasons, as all have different strengths:

 

Dan Jarvis

Ex military, white male, not old.  Will bring across a big chunk of the military and police vote. 

Good voting record.

 

Clive Lewis

Black, male, not old.  I think a lot of BAME voters would respond to a man of colour who they can vote for.

Great orator, a character.

 

Kier Starmer

White, male, not old.

The Labour version of Boris, but an upgrade in every way.

Would kill PMQs.

 

 

Under no circumstances should it be a woman.  These are working class men we are looking to vote for us, and they will vote for Boris ahead of a woman, every time. 

 

The soft underbelly of Labour has been PMQs, for far too long.  The mud-slinging, the name-calling, etc.  These three candidates have a degree of bullet-proof about them.

What, they're going to slag off Dan Jarvis, the ex soldier who risked his life for the country?  Nope.

Yes, they will slag off Clive Lewis, but they will have to tip-toe around him so much due to his skin colour, and with Boris' record on this, he's already on the defensive.

Kier Starmer will bat away questions all day, and he will fire them back with precision.

 

Any other answer to the question about leadership is wrong.  You don't want to win an election if you choose anyone else, you just want to make it look like you do. 

[M_B]

36 minutes ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

Under no circumstances should it be a woman.  These are working class men we are looking to vote for us, and they will vote for Boris ahead of a woman, every time. 

So we shouldn't have a woman at the helm because the electorate are misogynistic? Can't say I agree there at all.

[Numero Veinticinco]

In what way is Starmer the Labour version of Boris, mate?

[deiseach]

.

[Scooby Dudek]

 

[skend04]

43 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

All but four of the seats Labour lost were in Leave constituencies. The other 4 were marginals won in 2017.

Labour lost because Corbyn wasn't seen as a leader. And whoever came up with the policy of remaining neutral on their own Brexit negotiations needs flaying and then shooting out of a cannon. At a wall. The most insane piece of policy making I've ever seen.

 

Plus Corbyn really needs to quit now, hanging around like a bad smell will just appear as an attempt to influence the leadership contest.

[Colonel Bumcunt]

9 minutes ago, M_B said:

So we shouldn't have a woman at the helm because the electorate are misogynistic? Can't say I agree there at all.

Neither do I, but either you want to win or you don't! 

 

 

[Colonel Bumcunt]

9 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

In what way is Starmer the Labour version of Boris, mate?

Perception.

Upper class, white, well-spoken, part of the gentry, a good egg, someone you can trust, likes a bulldog, likes the rugger, clever chap, can tell them Europe's where to go, looks comfortable meeting the Queen, knows when St George's Day is, can speak a bit of latin. 

 

Details do not matter in showbiz.  Of course Starmer is not Boris, but to many he will be the same. 

 

Personal anecdote:

Always remember working on a tv show with Frank Skinner, and he was dressed as Ronaldo (early 2000's), when he had his fast step-overs with his white boots on.  Skinner was wearing silver boots.  I said "I think he wears white boots", and Skinner replied "it doesn't matter, it's shiny and bright, it's the same".  

 

[Captain Turdseye]

1 hour ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

3 answers, for different reasons, as all have different strengths:

 

Dan Jarvis

Ex military, white male, not old.  Will bring across a big chunk of the military and police vote. 

Good voting record.

 

Clive Lewis

Black, male, not old.  I think a lot of BAME voters would respond to a man of colour who they can vote for.

Great orator, a character.

 

Kier Starmer

White, male, not old.

The Labour version of Boris, but an upgrade in every way.

Would kill PMQs.

 

 

Under no circumstances should it be a woman.  These are working class men we are looking to vote for us, and they will vote for Boris ahead of a woman, every time. 

 

The soft underbelly of Labour has been PMQs, for far too long.  The mud-slinging, the name-calling, etc.  These three candidates have a degree of bullet-proof about them.

What, they're going to slag off Dan Jarvis, the ex soldier who risked his life for the country?  Nope.

Yes, they will slag off Clive Lewis, but they will have to tip-toe around him so much due to his skin colour, and with Boris' record on this, he's already on the defensive.

Kier Starmer will bat away questions all day, and he will fire them back with precision.

 

Any other answer to the question about leadership is wrong.  You don't want to win an election if you choose anyone else, you just want to make it look like you do. 

 

Lewis also did a 3 month tour of Afghanistan with the TA. 

[A Red]

14 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I wouldn't judge them that harshly; in fact, I probably shouldn't refer to "them" at all. It's us. All humans are susceptible to biases, suggestion and flawed reasoning. 

 

In every way, Labour’s manifesto would have made life better for everyone  (except those in the centre of a Venn diagram of "very rich" and "utterly immoral") but never managed to distil the key points - especially Brexit policy - into messages simple enough to cut through.

I am neither very rich, a little bit rich or rich at all nor am i utterly immoral but Labours manifesto would have made life worse for me.

 

The brexit policy is one that you and many others said on here said was simple and easy to understand, I dont really understand what you mean by "messages simple enough to cut through". Unless of course you do think that most that disagreed with it are indeed thick.