No I'm talking about clicking onto the thread hoping to read something vaguely interesting and instead finding more pointless point scoring.
So desperate, yet so wrong. I’ll just reiterate:
I wish you'd reiterate the bit about "them" so we know who you are talking about. You seem remarkably shy on reproducing it for those you keep refering to it.
pointless point scoring
Uh?
Conference could be lively
The crux is he has to have a transformation, Ernie is right in that he isn't able to communicate passion and therefore doesn't inspire, we can disagree as to why.
Trying to do this when someone has book sales based on taking him down is going to be a massive distraction.
And where is the successor? It's easy to name potential replacements for Boris, the labour MPs seem invisible,
Where is Reeves on the economy? Sunak should be under pressure
Where is Nandy and Healey on Afghanistan, China,
Where is Lammy on justice other than opposing his own parties policy on deportation of serious criminals
What is Kate Greene's plan for post Covid education and grade inflation
Anyone seen Jo Stevens talk about Facebook?
What is Pollard's plan for farming subsidies?
Has Haigh said anything in public on NI since May?
What does McMahon think of HS3?
Has Thomas-Symonds said anything on GMP being in special measures?
Has Thornberry read a trade agreement yet?
Rayner has a complex private life, others were burnt in the last leadership campaign, who can step up and put Keir out of his misery?
Perhaps the most sickening post politics job award goes to Tom Watson – the tireless campaigner against gambling who now works for Paddy Power.
There's quite a few of these type. Chris Leslie, Flip Flop Chukka - all enjoying post centrist MP ker-ching.
Rayner has a complex private life
And? Even if true can you explain what that has to do with her ability to lead the labour party?
who can step up and put Keir out of his misery?
Sometimes the simple and obvious answer is the correct answer. There isn't anyone.
And? Even if true can you explain what that has to do with her ability to lead the labour party?
Just Google it, arguably it doesn't stop her becoming leader but for some people it won't play well. The attention it will garner will be a distraction and upsetting for the family.
If I'm wrong about the issue and it's not true then she probably is the opposite of Starmer in terms of communicating her passion and becomes the leading pick subject to what Ken come out with in his book
Sometimes the simple and obvious answer is the correct answer. There isn’t anyone.
There must be someone, John Ashworth is OK, passionate, on his brief, gets on TV
There must be others..
Rayner shagging a married MP shouldn't matter, but it would, not least because she's a woman & mysoginy is a thing
Hancocks demise was a combo of his position of health secretary being untenable after being caught breaking the rules & the salacious press & public loving some moralising
Ironically Johnson having been far worse is all part of his personality!
John Ashworth is OK
Jesus wept!
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1425834782630440963?s=19
Was that small blip in Starmer's trajectory before he continues downwards?
Yougov also saying similar to ipsosmori today too.
Don't see that changing until autumn either
Starmer still a passenger until covid played out.
I'm still waiting for Survation tho! 😁
😀
Lots of noise about Johnson jumping in on the Alpaca.
(Johnson riding it bareback into Chequers wouldn't surprise me these days.)
There must be someone, John Ashworth is OK, passionate, on his brief, gets on TV
There must be others..
The thing is none of them are able to speak with any passion or conviction about anything, due to the fact that they don't fundamentally differ from the government on anything substantial. They just have a default mode of moderately criticising the government and offering no real alternative, which sounds petty and unconvincing even to someone who detests the Tories.
Difficult to see anyone standing out within that.
Jesus wept!
The floor is open for other suggestions......
Richard Burgon isn't allowed
The thing is none of them are able to speak with any passion or conviction about anything, due to the fact that they don’t fundamentally differ from the government on anything substantial.
I'm not sure why, I can find lots to differ about
The floor is open for other suggestions……
I’ve said many times Rayner or Burnham are the only candidates with the public profile and personality to put across a viable alternative that people can support. I don’t much like either as they’re a bit too careerist to challenge the status quo, but I do think they are sincere, and most importantly have strong opinions on the problems that exist and the potential solutions.
I can find lots to differ about
Grum used the words 'fundamentally' and 'substantial'.
There's a huge range of different opinions within the Tory Party, it doesn't mean that those with different opinions fundamentally disagree on anything substantial.
For me most Labour politicians lack passion because they aren't angry. And the reason they aren't angry is because they have nothing to be angry about.
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about? He's got a cushty job and he doesn't fundamentally disagree with anything the Tories are doing. If he's feeling particularly contrary he'll order Labour MPs to abstain from a vote.
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about?
And that’s exactly why I think Rayner is the only realistic alternative as anger is her MO. She’d fire up the party in a way few others could with a tsunami of insults, swearing and aggression. I’ve said for a long time labour - even under Corbyn - show the tories far too much respect.
I wouldn’t have have said the same about Burnham until the pandemic showed he still has some reserves of passion and has huge support in the north.The main problem with him is he lost (massively) to Corbyn and isn’t in parliament.
Rayner shagging a married MP shouldn’t matter, but it would, not least because she’s a woman & mysoginy is a thing
It wouldn't matter if they were a tory MP/leader as the press and Tories would ignore it. It matters if they are Labour as it is something to attack them on (by the press and the tories).
It is not a level playing field and never will be so Labour need to be cleaner. That is why Starmer was a good choice after Corbyn but unfortunately didn't work and tend to agree with comments above that he has nothing to be angry about. A bit annoyed maybe as country not run exactly as he would like but not different enough to get angry about it. Could be the same underlying issue that always holds Liberals back?
Obviously Starmer comes across as passionless and boring… but beware the idea that “angry” would play well with the voters beyond the already converted. An angry socialist isn’t going to win over those wary of Labour at the last few lost elections. It could play well with new young voters… but we know that appealing to them isn’t yet enough to win (it might be after another 20 years of demographic change, but I hope Labour don’t wait for that).
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about? He’s got a cushty job
Being the leader of the labour party at the moment is probably far from cushy
Burnham flip flops under pressure so isn't going to be an alternative
Rayner is the obvious choice but isn't without flaws regardless of the private life
Being the leader of the labour party at the moment is probably far from cushy
Starmer will always have a cushty job, even after politics, he can't fail. And btw I meant cushty not cushy.
beware the idea that “angry” would play well
You do realise that by angry I don't mean losing your rag don't you? I'm talking about an anger which feeds a passion, and that passion used in a constructive way to provide a vision which people can believe in.
Change occurs when people passionately believe in something.
An angry socialist isn’t going to win over those wary of Labour at the last few lost elections.
Given that the comatose centrist doesn't seem to be doing too well, perhaps it's time to try something different?
I wish you’d reiterate the bit about “them” so we know who you are talking about. You seem remarkably shy on reproducing it for those you keep refering to it.
If I thought you were genuinely interested in learning something, I'd make the effort. But it's pretty clear that you're not, so I won't waste my time. You went and pulled one quote to try to make your argument, yet failed to provide full context. It's clear you're trying to only push one prejudiced agenda. And it's clear that you're only doing this, in order to try to undermine anything I might have to say. Because it doesn't fit in with your own narrow world view. In sporting parlance, it's called 'playing the man, not the ball'. Just accept; you got it wrong, and move on. I'm bored with it, as I'm sure everyone else is too. Ask yourself what you have to gain by continuing this same stupid nonsense, that you know is nonsense anyway. To boost your own 'credentials'? That ship sailed some time ago. Park your ego. And try to refrain from being a shmeckel, eh?
For me most Labour politicians lack passion because they aren’t angry. And the reason they aren’t angry is because they have nothing to be angry about.
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about? He’s got a cushty job and he doesn’t fundamentally disagree with anything the Tories are doing.
Pretty much hits the nail on the head. Starmer's only really interested in continuing the neoliberal project which favours people like himself; he really cannot connect with other groups and views. He has no ability to channel the anger of other people, and use that as a weapon against the tories. Corbyn was far more effective at that, even though he abhors confrontation. For a renowned lawyer to shirk from an opportunity for a good battle, well, that's indicative of someone who's given up and has settled in for a comfortable life.
It’s clear you’re trying to only push one prejudiced agenda.
The ironing.....
Given that the comatose centrist doesn’t seem to be doing too well, perhaps it’s time to try something different?
Lmfao.
I always thought it odd that this wasn't close to obvious from the start.
Sometimes the simple and obvious answer is the correct answer. There isn’t anyone.
Yup - the lack of talent at Westminster is so obvious. There is no one I know of in the labour party i would rather have - and no one who would do better I times of crisis incumbent governments always get a political boost no matter how well they are doing.
As for Corbyns wealth - he is only a millionaire if you count in the value of the house he lives in - the one house - not the multiple ones other mps have bought using expenses
Raynor would be a huge turn off to many folk - me included.
Raynor would be a huge turn off to many folk – me included.
You vote SNP/ Green
Admittedly a vote they should want to gain but Labour isn't going to change its unionist principles, it is the party of Keir Hardie after all. So a vote they couldn't gain no matter who is in the hot seat.
I like Keir Starmer. He is intelligent, he is articulate, he is decent, he hasn't painted a swastika on a synagogogue as far as I know? There are what, 2-3 more years until the next UK Gov election? What more do you want from a labour leader? The party is clearly a failed organisation (see any of Binners posts), there is not any gain from him opposing the Tories vehemently on anything - if labout says no, they do ergo his fault (in simple Daily Mail reader terms). Give the guy a chance and support him until the next election. Or stay in the unelectable wilderland while the Tories just Tory (is that a verb?)
he hasn’t painted a swastika on a synagogogue as far as I know?
What’s that got to do with being leader of the Labour Party?
Big and daft - never voted SNP in my life.
I voted labour for 30+ years only stopping after the nonsense that labour got up to in Scotland once they lost power
labour are now dead in Scotland after their antics over the last decade but I am exactly the sort of vote that labour lost and need back
I would have voted for labour under Corbyn, I would for starmer ( depending on the tactical situation / type of election) Raynor or nandy - definite nope. Burnham - certain nope
What’s that got to do with being leader of the Labour Party?
I think the point being made is that he seems like a nice young man. And polite too.
What more do you want from a labour leader?
To challenge the shit the tories are up to
To provide a basic vision of what he wants for the country
To be memorable. If people don't even know who he is that is not a good start after over a year in the position.
What more do you want from a labour leader? The party is clearly a failed organisation (see any of Binners posts),
To pull in the bloody opposite direction when necessary. To offer up fresh ideas and passion. Should it need spelling out?
Binners 'logic' has sunk in Keir Starmer's bath. The remain crew were used and abused by the likes of Starmer so they could navigate towards his leadership, only to be rewarded with moving on from Brexit. To me that always looked like the outcome.
Centrism is not an ideology that makes sense. It's not even an idealogy. It's a 'rigged' free-market with please and thank-you attached. It has all the political constrains placed on it to suit the rich. It would barely correct the current shit-show economically, and more to the point despite all the rants on here you that need someone who represents the middle - it's not gained traction with the electorate because 'the middle' is a vague place to be these days.
The Tories are not vague they are pushing in a direction. (On the upside that direction is fraught with decimation.)
You won't pull voters to the middle in any useful way. We need the politics of Corbyn with someone who can stand up for themselves and sell it to the electorate. Go head-on with massive spending plans (assuming resources) - we should realise by now we can afford things to change society. Let's figure out what's important to a progressive society that wants to get through the next fifty years and push upwards.
I just can't see this happening though.
We are doomed in the nebulous bath of Starmer and the likes of Wes Streeting, who are confused about the benefits of Neolibralism. And frankly should be ashamed of their understanding of what it means to be in the Labour party.
Beyond contempt chucking Loach out. A man who has devoted his entire life to high-lighting the pitfalls of inequality.
Shameful.
But it seems to go with the territory these days.
I would have voted for labour under Corbyn, I would for starmer ( depending on the tactical situation / type of election)
Corbyn fought two general elections, you didn't vote labour
Starmer is an out and out unionist so I expect "would" means the same as it did for Corbyn...?
Beyond contempt chucking Loach out. A man who has devoted his entire life to high-lighting the pitfalls of inequality
Or is it that he wouldn't leave an organisation the party had proscribed?
Or is it that he wouldn’t leave an organisation the party had proscribed?
That's the problem with Ken Loach, he has principles. And he stands up for what he believes in. In fact he's famous for it.
I can't see a place for someone like that in Starmer's Labour Party.
It is now a party of careerists and opportunitists with no principles, people like Starmer.
Ken Loach will undoubtedly keep publicising the cruel injustices of Tory Britain, he just won't be doing it from inside the Labour Party. A party which will continue to be ever more irrelevant under Starmer.
Big and daft - try to read and understand
I would vote for Corbyn led party if appropriate in the tactical situation. I would vote for a party led by starmer. I wouldn't if any of Nandy, Raynor or Burnham were leading the party.
t is now a party of careerists and opportunitists with no principles, people like Starmer.
Its been like that for decades. Since Blair hollowed out the party and turned it from leading to following
Burnham is your classic for this. ~a contemptible playing of the race card to get elected. Utterly vile
