MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
that led to another tory government
It was everyone but Corbyn, wasn’t it TJ.
As RLB was green new deal I reckon that’s why she will get Environment.
The Green New Deal is primarily an economic policy rather than an environmental one. If Starmer really wants to keep the left on side, he needs to give RLB a big job. Maybe not chancellor, but he could merge the environment, business and energy portfolios with RLB as shadow minister for a green new deal.
Dazh, if the shadow cabinet is for ever more to only contain people who ‘got behind Corbyn’,
Sigh. Where did I say that only Corbyn supporters should be in the shadow cabinet? If he's serious about unifying the party, then obviously he needs to appoint people from across the whole party. He also needs to look forward though and bring in younger faces rather than dinosaurs like Cooper and Benn.
Bringing in younger talent would have been a lot easier last November before a load them lost their seats, while the 70’s retro dinosaurs sat complacently in their own safe-as-houses seats like Islington 🙄
And Cooper and Benn, along with the rest of the refuseniks who refused to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet should be kept on the back benches where they belong.
Dazh, if the shadow cabinet is for ever more to only contain people who ‘got behind Corbyn’, then Keir is screwed from day one, and the party is staying where it currently is for the foreseeable.
Sigh. Where did I say that only Corbyn supporters should be in the shadow cabinet?
And Cooper and Benn, along with the rest of the refuseniks who refused to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet should be kept on the back benches where they belong.
Loop.
Len McClusky really is the most useful of idiots for the Tory’s
You'd know!
Loop.
It really isn't. You didn't need to be a Corbyn supporter to serve in the shadow cabinet. See: Starmer.
I said nothing about ‘supporters’, I said ‘got behind’, which is what you were doing if you served in his cabinet, clearly. Dazh was saying people who refused to serve in Corbyn’s cabinet shouldn’t be allowed to serve in Starmer’s cabinet.
Kelvin you really do read what you want to read don't you? There are plenty of people who served in Corbyn's shadow cabinet who weren't supporters of him (like Starmer). There are also plenty of MPs who weren't supporters who didn't exclude themselves from serving in the shadow cabinet. There were a number of MPs who threw their dummies out the pram because the membership rejected them and then actively refused because it would have meant toeing the line. It's this latter group that I'm talking about, and that includes Benn and Cooper. Also Ed Miliband, Margaret Beckett etc. Time to move on.
which is what you were doing if you served in his cabinet
So everyone who served under Corbyn, or by extension supported anything he did is not fit to be in the shadow cabinet now? I think your McCarthyite witchunt is not the sort of unity Starmer is talking about.
I can read. Try again.
and those who made the most trouble against Corbyn that led to another tory government.
That is an impressive piece of revisionist history
I’ll be super clear.
To exclude MPs from a Starmer cabinet because they refused to join, or chose to leave, a Corbyn cabinet, would be counter to moving the party forward and broadening its appeal. Which is what everyone who wants a Labour government should be aiming for now. If it is only people who got behind Corbyn, by serving in his cabinet, who are to have a key role in the PLP now, then we may as well still have Corbyn as leader.
The new cabinet needs to include people who shone in Corbyn’s front bench team (yes, some did), but also draw from people who stayed well clear of it, and people who left it, and newer MPs who weren’t even in the running to be in it.
So should Corbynite intellectual heavyweight Richard Burgon be chancellor or Home Secretary?
What Kelvin said!
Looks like we'll find out tomorrow
heavyweight Richard Burgon
Having the courage to boot him to the back benches, or not, will set the tone for the new cabinet more than anything.
I’m hoping RLB get’s a big role, but not as ‘successor’ to McDonnell, that would send the wrong message. Environment seems a perfect fit, and I hope could be made to be a role as important, especially in campaign terms, as any other… if not more so. She proved herself in the leadership campaign, I felt.
The more the spotlight lands on Burgon, the more incompetent and vacuous he appears.
The new cabinet needs to include people who shone in Corbyn’s front bench team (yes, some did), but also draw from people who stayed well clear of it, and people who left it, and newer MPs who weren’t even in the running to be in it.
It should definitely include people who threw their toys out of the pram the minute they didn't get their own way.
You need to move on, and hope the new team can appeal to the country, not just you.
Move on? Some chance! The PFJ will happily continue to pursue the Corbynite agenda until they’re trailing the Lib Dems, polling single figures
Ideological purity trumps everything.
Whether anyone but them will vote for it is but a minor consideration
I just want to know if we'll be allowed to stop the endless BS anti-Semitism witch hunt now?
Unless Starmer has recently had his photo taken grinning and shaking hands with any leaders of Hamas or Hezbolah
Kelvin. On the back of the tory / labour non aggression pact in Scotland the tories gained IIRC 10 seats - without those 10 seats May would have been out of office. Its a simple fact. Murray was the main architect of it.
If he is anywhere near the front benches there is no hope of any labour resurgence in Scotland. That man wanted people to vote tory! that is no behaviour for a labour MP.
he is an absolute cockwomble and any labour MP that promotes voting tory because he is so bitter at the success of another leftish party should be thrown out of the party in my book
there were disgusting scenes of Labour candidates and officials cheering tory wins
I do not want to see Long Bailey anywhere near the front benches either. A complete diddy. totally rejected by the party.
This of course shows that all the nonsense about momentum is just that. the diddy left do not have control of the party. If they did Long Bailey would be leader.
Instead the party has comprehensivly rejected the puerile point scoring politics of the peoples liberation front of judea and chosen a leftish mainstream candidate overwhelmingly. that gives Starmer real power. Now is the time to get rid of the idiots from both right and left.
Long Baily may grow up in time - but for all I think Binners views are overblown - on Long Bailey he is 100% right
Bloody hell! This is a first! 😃
Ian Hislop nailed it last night
“Whenever I see Rebecca Long-Bailey I think there must be a primary school missing a teacher”
She’s been a shadow minister for years and I can’t think of a single thing she’s ever said or done. She should be nowhere near the front bench.
Ten years.
Starting with the wrong Milliband, three election defeats, Brexit, and Austerity.
Ten years wasted. Ten years, well it'll be fourteen years with these next few being the most destructive.
You should thank yourselves for your contribution to the tory cause.
Who cares if RLB comes across as a primary school teacher? And why would that be a bad thing? But she doesn’t anyway, does she.
I would have agreed with you both ‘till the leadership campaign, interviews and hustings… but now think she has far more to offer than was apparent while she was being a loyal member of the shadow cabinet. I understand the fears of her being in the pocket of the wrong people, but some time in the new cabinet will allay those fears, I suspect. Glad she’s not leader, and don’t think she should be shadow chancellor, but she shouldn’t be written off yet.
If he is anywhere near the front benches there is no hope of any labour resurgence in Scotland.
Agreed TJ. Not a fan of Murray in any way myself.
As an aside, I don’t think Labour will come back in Scotland until after major constitutional change, which is years away, but now next to inevitable.
There is an easy route back to relevance in Scotland for labour.
Constitutional stuff - come up with a coherent policy that would resonate with the undecided third of the electorate on independence. Something along the lines of a constitutional convention for the whole of the UK looking at electoral reform and federalism
But most importantly engage constructively at holyrood. They made themselves irrelevant by refusing to do so and opposing anything and everything the SNP do
So rather than - "SNP baaaaad" and " we oppose this SNP policy" change it to " thats a good policy so far as it goes - but you need to add a,b and C to it"
Finally =- remember who the enemy is - the tories. they need to stop all co-operation with the tories in any form anywhere. there are councils where the SNP are the biggest party but its run by a labour / tory coalition. disgraceful
Whenever I see Rebecca Long-Bailey I think there must be a primary school missing a teacher”
Oh my goodness, how does anyone stand a chance?
I’ve mostly only seen her on the Andrew Marr show - she’d get my vote. I’d trust her to be capable of doing the shadow chancellor job, and I’d trust her to have the right intentions.
I wouldn't trust her to run a bath.
But she doesn’t anyway, does she.
If ever a sentence needed a question mark at the end of it. Oh, and the answer is; Yes, yes she does.
I wouldn’t trust her to run a bath.
What does this even mean? Clearly you think she can run a bath, so what do you really think she cannot do, and why?
Can you tell me anything that Rebecca Long Bailey has either said or done of any significance?
She’s been on the front bench for 4 years.... and done what?
Just like the rest of the Corbynites, the square root of **** all!
The only way she’ll get a front bench position is by being a modern day John Prescott. A figurative sop to the PFJ
I liked John Prescott.
I don’t claim to know as much about all this as you. What has Sir Keir Starmer done in the last 4 years? I don’t think there’s much any of them could have done that would satisfy you. And by PFJ, do you mean people who you disagree with?
Grandad, Magic Grandad, allotments, PFJ, ... just say what you mean in a clear way. You sound like Trump!
I agree with everything you say there about Labour in Scotland TJ.
The ‘primary school teacher’ thing still seems dubious to me… smacks a bit of some men having a problem with younger women seeking power, to me.
I liked Prescott as well. Although Nandy reminds me more of him politically than RLB does… although far more articulate, of course.
I wouldn’t trust her to run a bath.
What does this even mean? Clearly you think she can run a bath, so what do you really think she cannot do, and why?
It means I think she is an idiot completely out of touch with reality and I do not trust her to do anything.
What does this even mean? Clearly you think she can run a bath, so what do you really think she cannot do, and why?
It's figure of speech. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the meaning.
smacks a bit of some men having a problem with younger women seeking power, to me.
I hadn't thought that personally, but I understand your point. I just think she's reached beyond her capability. It's the same issue as Corbyn strangely enough, I think he's probably a very good campaigning local MP but Leader or probably even opposition front bench was beyond what he was comfortable with, their (LB and Corbyn) type of politics just don't suit that.
Totally agree. Corbyn is a good MP who does what an MP is supposed to do with integrity. That however doesn't make him a good leader or someone who can deal with the aspects of being the leader.
Sadly he didn't seem to realise that.
Starmer may be a better choice for leader but not convinced the public won't just ignore him/wonder who he is as he is not dynamic enough to catch their attention.
For me with Long Bailey its not about her capability, its about her knowledge and understanding. She just reminds me of the loony left from the 80s. All slogans and purity and stating what is wanted to be heard in the circles she lives in with zero knowledge of the real world and a willful deafness to how she sounds to the outside world.
Nandy just comes over as dim and without any political nous at all.
Starmer on the other hand - its not so much about what he did and said, its about what he didn't do and say. He didn't take a tantrum and sit on the back benches undermining his leader and helping the tories. he didn't try to force his views at the risk of splitting his party. I cannot think of a single stupid thing he has said
I am interested in politics but have not been able to be 'political' before now.
I have voted blue and yellow in the past.
I am motivated by KS to actually join labour BUT my local lab MP is probably the most useless and ineffective person I have met. I don't want to support her but I want to help labour and the UK population.
Should I join???
I am motivated by KS to actually join labour BUT my local lab MP is probably the most useless and ineffective person I have met. I don’t want to support her but I want to help labour and the UK population.
Should I join???
If you join, come the next election you'll be in a position to vote on which candidate your local Labour party puts forward to stand.
Aside from that, you'll be supporting the whole party with you membership.
I cannot think of a single stupid thing he has said
This scares the crap out of me.
I have alway said politicians should only be allowed to stand for parliament after a substantial career doing something else first so we have a parliament full of experience across industries, careers and sectors. To that end he certainly fits the bill as someone qualified for the role.
Quietly optimistic.
Why? Leaving the EU is unutterably stupid. Thats a sensible position -0 rule nothing in and rule nothing out
Why? Leaving the EU is unutterably stupid.
Totally agree.
However, a large chunk of key marginal seats do not. They are the ones that matter.
Falling into the most basic trap of "Starmer wants to reverse Brexit" will lead to instant failure.
Labour HAS to win back Brexit voters.
You need to move on, and hope the new team can appeal to the country, not just you.
You should be congratulated for shoehorning at least two false assumptions in one short sentence.
I have always said politicians should only be allowed to stand for parliament after a substantial career doing something else first
Thatcher the Chemist? Blair the lawyer? Major the Insurance man?
It's not a great indication of quality really.
Labour HAS to win back Brexit voters.
Laboour has to appreciate that a majority of it's support is from Brexit-ers. Corbyn couldn't grasp that, but BoJo certainly did.
Laboour has to appreciate that a majority of it’s support is from Brexit-ers.
Cite? My understanding is the opposite but the labor brexiteers are concentrated in a few constituencies and losing those votes was enough to lose the seats as a swing of 5 - 10% was enough
Laboour has to appreciate that a majority of it’s support is from Brexit-ers.
30% is the estimate of Labour Brexit voters, not the majority.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48039984
However these Brexit voters are in the key marginals.
Corbyn couldn’t grasp that, but BoJo certainly did.
Corbyn was more pro Brexit until people (such as Starmer, Watson etc) pushed him towards a more remain stance. I'd say Corbyn did understand that, but buckled under the pressure eventually. My fear is that it's those people who pushed will now see Starmer as an opportunity to reopen the debate
Corbyn was pro-Brexit, but couldn't bear to politically distance himself from his own view, despite it being a major difference to the Tory policy. It cost him.
Despite all his protestations, it was a binary GE in December, and he tried to appeal to both sides, and ended up alienating both instead.
My understanding is the opposite
All the "Labour Heartland" areas that went Tory for the first time in forever. Why, if not that?
Boomerlives - do you understand how FPTP actually works?
Tj:
For me with Long Bailey its not about her capability, its about her knowledge and understanding. She just reminds me of the loony left from the 80s. All slogans and purity and stating what is wanted to be heard in the circles she lives in with zero knowledge of the real world
Ah, count me in as an idiot too. I have just watched a couple of interviews with her and I probably stand to the left of her! (I loved Michael Foot). There’s nothing wrong with purity in my view. Perhaps you prefer Tory slogans like ‘protect the NHS’? There is no getting around, slogans are powerful. Something perhaps Corbyn was weak on, he tended to stick to the issue and not resort to trite soundbites. As to knowledge of the real world, that is likely due to perspective - maybe you’ve bought one to many Tory lies?!
I’d give Sir Keir a 6/10 on the Marr show today. I like a lot of what he said, but it was difficult to tell what he really thought. In attempting to win over the ‘centre ground’, he may well lose my & others support. We’ll see.
I'm definitely centrist and KS has immediately inspired me to join the LP (barring my lame MP). I think the majority of the UK are liberal thinking centrists.
PR will also encourage more people to be involved and vote if they think it will count.
As a former blue voter it makes me sick to see people like Philip Green asking for bailouts after paying himself a £1.2billion dividend. Branson is in the same boat, sues NHS, billionaire but wants bailout. The list is long.
We've gone too far right.
Guass - its that she spouts stuff that is obvious nonsense because its the "right" answer in her little circle of righteousness. Not that its the right answer in the real world.
I think the majority of the UK are liberal thinking centrists.
A cursory look at the Lib Dems shows this is clearly not the case.
The centrists are the swing voters not the majority (this is also leaving aside the definition of centrist).
The problem with chasing them is you leave large amounts of the country feeling unrepresented and looking for alternatives. You then end up with things like brexit where people vote for a change, any change, since they feel utterly unrepresented by the politicians.
Guass – its that she spouts stuff that is obvious nonsense because its the “right” answer in her little circle of righteousness. Not that its the right answer in the real world.
Can you give me a couple of examples?
When asked about Corbyns leadership she said 10/10.
Chasing ‘centrists’ means little really. It’s pretty empty. Unless you are one of those Labour people who thinks voters are either socialists or centrists that is. If it means chasing non-socialists, then that absolutely does need to happen. Getting people who don’t identify as socialists to vote for you is essential if you want to be in power again. How you do that is the hard bit. There seems to be some obvious things to avoid though.
Oh, Corbyn got me voting Labour… the 2017 general election manifesto was much stronger than the previous effort. And yet Starmer doesn’t put me off, and I have no idea why he’d put any other left wing person off, and with the LibDems all but gone, there is the opportunity for the party to be the natural vote for everyone (in England at least) if and when they grow weary of the charlatans they voted into office in 2019.
Starmer seems we’ll placed political to keep left wing voters, and attract other voters to Labour. But does he have the campaigning skills and ruthlessness that are needed to win an election? I fear not. I hope so.
When asked about Corbyns leadership she said 10/10.
Seriously, you’d condemn her for that?
It was a dumb thing to say, if you ever want to win over voters who Corbyn scared off.
spouts stuff that is obvious nonsense because its the “right” answer in her little circle of righteousness
*spits tea over keyboard*
It was a dumb thing to say, if you ever want to win over voters who Corbyn scared off.
You do realise that she wasn't standing in a general election and trying to win over swing voters don't you? She was standing in a labour leadership election trying to win voters who previously had overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn, so maybe not dumb at all?
And yet Starmer doesn’t put me off, and I have no idea why he’d put any other left wing person off
Agreed. Many leftwingers, myself included, voted for him on the basis that he has promised to maintain the radical progressive policy agenda. I suspect a lot of the suspicion from the minority on the left is a reaction to the assumption of those on the right that he is 'their man'. I think the right of the party in time will be more disappointed than the left. My question if that happens is what they will do when they realise he's not Blair 2.0?
You do realise that she wasn’t standing in a general election and trying to win over swing voters don’t you?
If the last few years should have taught Labour politicians anything, is it that things you say before you become leader do not magically vanish once you are leader. It was a dumb thing for her to say and let people hang around her neck if she had become leader. When you’re preaching to the converted, you need to remember everyone else can hear you.
Anyway, I was standing up for her before, because more generally she impressed/surprised me during the leadership campaign, but I can’t think how anyone can defended that comment, even if it was off the cuff, or supposed to be jokey. It was politically naive in the extreme.
Thatcher the Chemist? Blair the lawyer? Major the Insurance man?
It’s not a great indication of quality really.
Thatcher first stood for parliament at 25 and was an MP by 34.
Blair first stood for parliament at 29 and was an MP by 30
Major was a local councillor by 21 though admittedly was not an MP until 36.
Starmer had a 'proper' job until the age of 52. That's an entirely different situation.
[Childish s****ing]
https://twitter.com/Ali7adeh/status/1246753660933201925?s=19
[/Childish s****ing]
(Old) Radio 4 interview with him on now is very interesting.
Gauss - yes because its a stupid thing to say. I liked Corbyn but his leadership skills were not great. Saying something so obviously false is daft. Contrast with how Starmer answered
Same as when RLB was asked about using nukes she said of course she would - now thats not an answer to her circle - thats for the right wing press. Again contrast with how Sturgeon answered that.
She just comes over to me terribly reminiscent of the leftist splitists of the 80s - who I spent a fair amount of time with. All mouth and no thought. too interested in how it sounds to her audience and not with what the truth is
Starmer had a ‘proper’ job until the age of 52. That’s an entirely different situation.
Ah, I missed the bit where you said they had to be at it for 25+ years for your point to be valid
As regards left and right labels - I would see Starmer as being properly centrist - thats centrist as in centre of the party not "centerist" as in the right of the party who really should be in other parties.
He’s left wing. But also very capable. Not sure the public will prefer capable to fun and irreverent though (current PM). Please Britain, prove me wrong.
In attempting to win over the ‘centre ground’, he may well lose my & others support. We’ll see.
To those with this view, do you think Labour have any prospect of power otherwise?
And as for the calibre of non-career politicians, I'd say they were "better" than those in power for the last decade.
Ah, I missed the bit where you said they had to be at it for 25+ years for your point to be valid
I thought that was implicit and relatively obvious. Yes, for a clarity - a fulsome if not complete career. Be that a teacher, a merchant seaman, a scientist or in the military. That ability to bring a career’s worth of insight with enough time at it to be able take the long view. A paper round or a first job after graduation does not cut it.
Will dumbojo have to call him Sir?
Kelvin. Left wing on a national scale but centre of the labour party the so called centrists or moderates in the labour party are right on the right wing edge of the party
I also see him as a bit of a technocrat
He’s left wing. And capable. The technocrat angle comes in because he has what it takes to run things, unlike his processor.
I didn't say technocrat was a wrong thing to be.
I see him as a very good choice. My only doubt is how well he can connect with the public at large.
I agree.
I suspect he will come over very well in debate with Johnson.
Still needs a voice coach.
Honestly, Starmer is a ray of light in this godawful sh*tshow. 24 hours into the job and he's already said more sensible things about coronavirus than the government or opposition have managed in 6 weeks...
good interview with nick Robinson from 2 years ago (b4 he was leadership candidate) on radio 4 earlier
Suspect he'd be more guarded in an interview now
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p060m3mz
I gather Gardiner and Lavery have both gone from the shadow cabinet, sounds like Gardiner was sacked.