Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win

65% of people from households earning less than £20k per year rejected Corbynism and did not vote for Labour!!
edit: Stated by Siobhain McDonagh MP

:eek:
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
65% of people from households earning less than £20k per year rejected Corbynism and did not vote for Labour!!

:eek:
Click to expand...

If true that's astounding. Then again with the media campaigns against anyone vaguely left -'Red Ed'with his 'Marxist father who hated Britain' and Corbyn's treatment in the press- then why am I surprised? :rolleyes:
 
Lentwood said:
So we're not THAT far apart then (I'm 'free market first' always)

I have to disagree on the reasoning for nationalising BT OpenReach, the reason for nationalising is thus;

See the below taken from Wikipedia (quick Google, sure I could find a better source!)

"The failure of BT Openreach to offer FTTH to any but a handful of customers, and millions of complaints regarding poor service since it was functionally separated from the main BT operation in 2005, had led nearly all UK ISPs to call for it to be completely split from BT. Ofcom, the UK's telecom regulator, consulted on the proposal and, after informal negotiations with BT failed, stated that it would force BT to divest Openreach into a separately-owned company. However, soon after this was announced, BT expressed its willingness to do more voluntarily; it later agreed with Ofcom to separate Openreach into a different legal company (Openreach Limited), but still owned by BT's parent holding company, BT Group plc. In December 2015, Ofcom revealed that BT's FTTP network passed only 200,000 premises (less than the 1% of the UK's houses and businesses), whilst other ISPs passed more than 200,000. Still, only 2% of the UK was able to receive FTTP."

I work in the IT industry and used to work for an independent telecomms provider so I have an insight into how all of this works and I think there is a common misconception here.

* FTTP or FTTH is 'Fibre to the Premise' or 'Fibre to the Home'
* Many service providers offer 'fibre' broadband, but only part of the network is based on fibre. Usually from the providers core network to the exchange.
* The rest of the network is still based on copper, or copper pairs (bonded DSL)
* There is also a product called 'FTTC' which means 'Fibre to the Cabinet'. This means there is fibre from the core network to the exchange and again to the cabinet (the green 'bins' you see on the street). However, the last leg i.e. from cabinet to your home is copper.

As we all know from GCSE science, copper is a poor conductor. This means an inconsistent service and limited average speeds.

Obviously increasing availability of fibre to the premise will become increasingly important as the IoT (Internet of Things) takes off and all Government services are digitised. I still meet businesses on a regular basis who can't even use Office365 because they are on business parks with 10MB copper Internet connections!

For BT OpenReach, you can understand why they don't upgrade the network. It's a commercial decision for them because they wouldn't see payback for many years. Take the example of a rural community, why would BT roll out a fibre service for ten users, charging £25 a month...how long would it take to pay that back!!! Even in cities it's not that simple because the costs involved in digging up the roads are off-putting to shareholders.

Also, the fact that Virgin, Exponential-E, PlusNet, Level 3, TalkTalk etc....have entered the market doesn't really help increase competition at the pinch-point because of the huge sunk costs involved, they are all heavily reliant on BTs core network infrastructure at some level

See, I do think there's a strong case that the private sector is failing us here....look at rates of FTTP/FTTH in other European/Asian countries....we're miles behind!
Click to expand...
Excellent post, thank you.
 
How much of that is pensioners who have savings and investments not counting to yearly income
 
sammsky1 said:
65% of people from households earning less than £20k per year rejected Corbynism and did not vote for Labour!!
edit: Stated by Siobhain McDonagh MP

:eek:
Click to expand...

A similar YouGov poll before the election had Johnson as more trustworthy than Corbyn on the NHS and perceived as a better potential PM even among the young voters who heavily supported Labour. Given what we've seen since then, I don't think there are many polling headlines that would surprise me right now.
 
They're sticking the boot into Corbyn and after the result are vindicated to do so. But there are a very few Labour MPs I like. So many of them just seemed from day one a little sneerish. The cult of personality around Corbyn from Momentum and the unions was unhealthy but I also believe there were some MPs who cast some spite. In the sense an elderly bearded man on the backbench who never held a cabinet job in the last Labour government or a shadow cabinet job in all these years, who was barely known on the national stage, and probably seen as a poor man's Dennis Skinner in the party suddenly became their boss.
 
esmufc07 said:
I really do not understand why people rated Pidcock. She was dreadful. Nice to see she has gone completely silent on Twitter.
Click to expand...

I don't think she was awful as such but far from remarkable either - probably a symptom of the fact that despite Corbyn holding power for four years his wing of the party never really produced all that many viable successors or future leaders who look like viable election winners. Hence why RLB now appears to be their chosen candidate with Burgon being a prominent voice on the party's left. Although the centre can hardly claim to be a lot more impressive in this regard.
 
Cheesy said:
I don't think she was awful as such but far from remarkable either - probably a symptom of the fact that despite Corbyn holding power for four years his wing of the party never really produced all that many viable successors or future leaders who look like viable election winners. Hence why RLB now appears to be their chosen candidate with Burgon being a prominent voice on the party's left. Although the centre can hardly claim to be a lot more impressive in this regard.
Click to expand...
Yup. Even the modern-day Kinnock is dull and rubbish.
 
Labour party appears to be really toxic place at the moment. Wish they were more professional about it, rather than leaking and shouting it all over the media, not sure what is being achieved by it.
 
2mufc0 said:
Labour party appears to be really toxic place at the moment. Wish they were more professional about it, rather than leaking and shouting it all over the media, not sure what is being achieved by it.
Click to expand...
Am of the opposite opinion. They have a very public and transparent role in society. They just bared their collective soul to the electorate and were found desperately wanting and out of touch.

There are obviously very deep divisions, in terms of ideology, character and personality. They have has serious allegations of narcissism and snobbery made against them. As a public and democratic body, they need to work these issues out in public, with public participation and allow the public to help them find resolution. And within the context of a media digitalised era.

Unless and until these issues are worked through, there is no chance whatsoever that they can gain the support of the majority public ever again.
 
Ubik said:
Yup. Even the modern-day Kinnock is dull and rubbish.
Click to expand...

Starmer's the only one I'm convinced might do alright, and even then I think it's less to do with any innate qualities he has and more to do with him not being downright terrible like the rest of them. The left will struggle to hold any real credibility going forward since they've been annihilated, and the centre don't seem to have any real ideas except moving on from Corbyn...which is fair enough in principle, but doesn't necessarily indicate the new direction which the party intends to take after any leadership election.

I know this sort of thing is spoken of a lot, but genuinely unsure if the party will survive as a major electoral force over the next decade or so. If RLB wins and mediocre polling continues, we'll likely see a mass exodus of the left to the Lib Dems; while the Libs didn't exactly have a good election, they did increase their vote share and may be able to do alright with a decent leader in charge who isn't Swinson. Similarly, if a fairly uninspiring centrist takes over and alienates the party's younger, left-leaning base, then I suspect we'll see more and more turning to the Greens. Potentially grim times ahead.
 
sammsky1 said:
Am of the opposite opinion. They have a very public and transparent role in society. They just bared their collective soul to the electorate and were found desperately wanting and out of touch.

There are obviously very deep divisions, in terms of ideology, character and personality. They have has serious allegations of narcissism and snobbery made against them. As a public and democratic body, they need to work these issues out in public, with public participation and allow the public to help them find resolution. And within the context of a media digitalised era.

Unless and until these issues are worked through, there is no chance whatsoever that they can gain the support of the majority public ever again.
Click to expand...
Yes they can do it in a more professional way, mud slinging in the media isn't the way to go. It's actually damaging to the party watching them squabble like kids.
 
2mufc0 said:
Yes they can do it in a more professional way, mud slinging in the media isn't the way to go. It's actually damaging to the party watching them squabble like kids.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for the fact that they're far from intellectually impressive themselves and don't seem to have a particularly interesting platform for how to advance the country going forward, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the centrist voices.

But I can understand why they're doing this. If they are actually genuine, then they'll be angry after a defeat last week which has to be put down to a historically unpopular leader and a fairly shambolic campaign. As a result they're going to be heavily critical...and if Corbyn's escapes with being lambasted by those within his party then he's going off extraordinarily lightly compared to those he failed to deliver a transformative government for after years of saying he would.

But it would be wrong to portray the centrist voices as naturally benevolent or overly concerned with the country as a whole...but at the same time it's almost hard to begrudge them a bit of smug gloating. Everything they said about Corbyn's lack of electability turned out to be true...and the jibes about their own lack of popularity seem a bit hasty in retrospect.
 
Lentwood said:
So we're not THAT far apart then (I'm 'free market first' always)

I have to disagree on the reasoning for nationalising BT OpenReach, the reason for nationalising is thus;

See the below taken from Wikipedia (quick Google, sure I could find a better source!)

"The failure of BT Openreach to offer FTTH to any but a handful of customers, and millions of complaints regarding poor service since it was functionally separated from the main BT operation in 2005, had led nearly all UK ISPs to call for it to be completely split from BT. Ofcom, the UK's telecom regulator, consulted on the proposal and, after informal negotiations with BT failed, stated that it would force BT to divest Openreach into a separately-owned company. However, soon after this was announced, BT expressed its willingness to do more voluntarily; it later agreed with Ofcom to separate Openreach into a different legal company (Openreach Limited), but still owned by BT's parent holding company, BT Group plc. In December 2015, Ofcom revealed that BT's FTTP network passed only 200,000 premises (less than the 1% of the UK's houses and businesses), whilst other ISPs passed more than 200,000. Still, only 2% of the UK was able to receive FTTP."

I work in the IT industry and used to work for an independent telecomms provider so I have an insight into how all of this works and I think there is a common misconception here.

* FTTP or FTTH is 'Fibre to the Premise' or 'Fibre to the Home'
* Many service providers offer 'fibre' broadband, but only part of the network is based on fibre. Usually from the providers core network to the exchange.
* The rest of the network is still based on copper, or copper pairs (bonded DSL)
* There is also a product called 'FTTC' which means 'Fibre to the Cabinet'. This means there is fibre from the core network to the exchange and again to the cabinet (the green 'bins' you see on the street). However, the last leg i.e. from cabinet to your home is copper.

As we all know from GCSE science, copper is a poor conductor. This means an inconsistent service and limited average speeds.

Obviously increasing availability of fibre to the premise will become increasingly important as the IoT (Internet of Things) takes off and all Government services are digitised. I still meet businesses on a regular basis who can't even use Office365 because they are on business parks with 10MB copper Internet connections!

For BT OpenReach, you can understand why they don't upgrade the network. It's a commercial decision for them because they wouldn't see payback for many years. Take the example of a rural community, why would BT roll out a fibre service for ten users, charging £25 a month...how long would it take to pay that back!!! Even in cities it's not that simple because the costs involved in digging up the roads are off-putting to shareholders.

Also, the fact that Virgin, Exponential-E, PlusNet, Level 3, TalkTalk etc....have entered the market doesn't really help increase competition at the pinch-point because of the huge sunk costs involved, they are all heavily reliant on BTs core network infrastructure at some level

See, I do think there's a strong case that the private sector is failing us here....look at rates of FTTP/FTTH in other European/Asian countries....we're miles behind!
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Virgin (I can't comment on the other companies you mentioned) are not reliant on the BT infrastructure, and certainly not in my area.

I have been a customer of BT (fairly awful), Sky (absolutely dreadful), and now Virgin Media (tolerable) for TV and Broadband and Telephone (landline only).

The main attraction to me of Virgin Media is that if something goes wrong, then at least there is only one provider in the loop (i.e. Virgin Media), and my experience has been that they accept responsibility and have generally been good at sorting out any issues.

My brief and unhappy relationship with Sky was that, in the event of a problem, their first assumption was that it was my fault, their second that it was BT's fault, and only after ruling those out did they remotely accept any responsibility at all (and even then they were incompetent at finding a resolution). The final straw for me was an occasion when Sky booked a BT engineer who turned up, conducted some tests, and confirmed my suspicion that it was a Sky problem, and left with the issue still unresolved - when I phoned Sky just minutes afterwards, they told me another BT engineer appointment was needed - priceless (followed by my early termination of the contract and the exchange of threatening letters).

Nationalising broadband provision would penalise innovative providers like Virgin media who have, despite their faults, raised the bar (still the fastest broadband service available in the UK), and move us all in the direction of the lowest common denominator.
 
Cheesy said:
If it weren't for the fact that they're far from intellectually impressive themselves and don't seem to have a particularly interesting platform for how to advance the country going forward, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the centrist voices.

But I can understand why they're doing this. If they are actually genuine, then they'll be angry after a defeat last week which has to be put down to a historically unpopular leader and a fairly shambolic campaign. As a result they're going to be heavily critical...and if Corbyn's escapes with being lambasted by those within his party then he's going off extraordinarily lightly compared to those he failed to deliver a transformative government for after years of saying he would.

But it would be wrong to portray the centrist voices as naturally benevolent or overly concerned with the country as a whole...but at the same time it's almost hard to begrudge them a bit of smug gloating. Everything they said about Corbyn's lack of electability turned out to be true...and the jibes about their own lack of popularity seem a bit hasty in retrospect.
Click to expand...
They all need to remember they are all on the same team. Whilst there are legitimate criticisms, the current mud slinging has gone too far, It seems like a 'cut off the nose to spite the face' scenario.
 
feck policies. We don’t know what next month is going to bring let alone 5 years down the line. Get policies done incrementally once elected into government. The first step is to elect a leader that can hold both sides of the party together and cannot be brutally smashed by the majority of the media for 5 years. Then just pick two or three relevant things at the time that need to be hammered home so when people see the labour box they know what it is they’re voting for and that’s it.

Keir Starmer needs to win being the strongest candidate in the PLO right now. We cannot choose a woman for the sake of it. feck positive discrimination we need a Labour government not a feminism award. Both RLB and Raynor have weaknesses that will only be amplified over and over in the next 5 years to the point of either of them becoming an unelectable joke among the fickle electorate we’re currently witnessing.

Starmer needs to be ruthless if chosen and get rid of bumbling fools like MacDonald, Burgeon, Gardiner and well past it MPs like Diane Abbot. With Starmer moderate heavyweights like Hillary Benn, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall etc can return to the shadow cabinet and make it the strongest possible from the PLP talent available rather than whoever would be available to take the position.
 
From what I've read, it wasn't his choice (he says as much in the Graun article above).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.