Perhaps he should just take money from Iran instead.
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
Perhaps he should just take money from Iran instead.
Funny how it's always the "centrists" fault, yet not a single "lefty" in this thread sees the attitude and problems coming from their side. Like the utter unwillingness to compromise. It's always us vs them and the blame game, nothing else.
Once again, lessons are not learned. Once again the party divide goes both ways.
Once again, lessons are not learned. Once again the party divide goes both ways.
How far do you want us to compromise sir?
Personally Corbyn's last Labour manifesto started to get to grips with the issues we have. Maybe 10% of the changes needed. The compromise was already on 90% of this capitalist monstrosity remaining in place.
Personally Corbyn's last Labour manifesto started to get to grips with the issues we have. Maybe 10% of the changes needed. The compromise was already on 90% of this capitalist monstrosity remaining in place.
Meh, don't worry I'm sure you'll eventually get your way somehow. I mean 10 years of getting it with Corbyn clearly wasn't enough.
Out of interest, do you have a pick for leader yet?
Been waiting my lifetime for a left wing government. Kinda used to it even if I think it's ridiculous.
No, not really. I think Starmer is more well rounded than most of them, if a little wooden. I know nothing about Nandy. Phillips is awful. RLB's policies are fine, but is too... well I just can't take to her. Thornberry I like and I'm not sure why she doesn't seem more popular. Though I confess I haven't looked deeply into her history or policies.
It is a bit of a tough crowd from what I can see. As sad as it may be, each have issues we know the media can attack. I think Nandy and Starmer could handle it better than most, as well as speaking well. I don't dislike RLB but I think she is already way too caught up in Corbyn's image and she seems to be even pushing that, coupled with the threat of Burgon being her number two that's a disaster zone.
I personally can't stand Thornberry though. Her attitude on election night was exactly the opposite of where Labour should be, and her complete lack of self awareness in her "humour" and all that comrade shite...ugh. She is currently worst case for me.
I don't actually know who my vote is on right now. Sadly I'm not enthused by any of them tbh
It is a bit of a tough crowd from what I can see. As sad as it may be, each have issues we know the media can attack. I think Nandy and Starmer could handle it better than most, as well as speaking well. I don't dislike RLB but I think she is already way too caught up in Corbyn's image and she seems to be even pushing that, coupled with the threat of Burgon being her number two that's a disaster zone.
I personally can't stand Thornberry though. Her attitude on election night was exactly the opposite of where Labour should be, and her complete lack of self awareness in her "humour" and all that comrade shite...ugh. She is currently worst case for me.
I don't actually know who my vote is on right now. Sadly I'm not enthused by any of them tbh
Will attack relentlessly. It's a shame only one side seems to have to worry about this.
There's a long time until the next election and the tories will be united for a good 6 months until it all starts to unravel. I think Labour have rushed into a change, though I understand the need for it.
I would have preferred a temporary leader while the dust settles a bit, let the hysteria die down. A chance for the next leader to rise more naturally. But we are here now and we won't really know how any of them will settle into the role until they are in position, so I'm honestly not going to worry too much about it. Sorry if that's not a great point on which to advance a discussion. The tories have once again won a rigged fight and I can only hope that enough people can give whatever imperfect leader the Labour party next put up, a chance to prove there is a better way.
I like Starmer and think he is the best person for the job . What sort of message it would say if he was the only male candidate of five people and won is another story mind
for all the shallow RLB gals, who aren't thinking through the implications of their radicalism
I think if starmer nandy Phillips or thornberry wins you will see them utilising the other 3 in senior roles
If wrong daily wins you will see her offering Corbyn McDonald abbot and burgon senior positions
As for Phillips... I think in the soundbite and Twitter landscape of personality politics she would achieve the most cut through and do the most damage to Johnson
How weird that he could only get 5 people to nominate him, including himself.
Honestly.
Characterization of would be Labour Leaders;
Rebecca Long Baily - "Corbyn in Skirts"
Jess Phillips - "Gobby School girl"
Emily Thornberry - "Middleclass equivalent of a Fishwife"
Sir Keir Starmer- "The millionaire (would be) philanthropist"
Lisa Nandy - "Manager for 'Red Wall' rebuild"
Rebecca Long Baily - "Corbyn in Skirts"
Jess Phillips - "Gobby School girl"
Emily Thornberry - "Middleclass equivalent of a Fishwife"
Sir Keir Starmer- "The millionaire (would be) philanthropist"
Lisa Nandy - "Manager for 'Red Wall' rebuild"
I see Phillips has said it would be an embarrassment if a man wins .
Surely that has to be sexist to say the only male cannot be allowed to win
Surely that has to be sexist to say the only male cannot be allowed to win
Very much so. The far left are in denial.
Either that or they are scared of being in power.
You're taking shite and keep making the same hypocritical post which is getting boring.
"Best" is entirely subjective. And people's subjective views are conditioned by what they're used to. If people are used to seeing white men in positions of leadership, they will believe that white men are best because it fits their learned experience. Once you see women, or people who aren't white, or disabled people, in positions of leadership it begins to change how people define "best" in the first place. They begin to look for different qualities. But sometimes you need to force that first step to disrupt previous beliefs because otherwise you perpetuate a vicious circle.
Labour membership surges by 100,000 as leadership race deadline looms tonight
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-membership-surges-100000-leadership-21317363?1
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-membership-surges-100000-leadership-21317363?1
While I tend to agree with all you have said, people are routinely selected as being the best candidate for a specific position.
Selection is always a judgement call and as long as you have used the best available metrics to support that decision then you have done your best.
Selection of the next leader of the Labour Party is absolutely crutial. That person will have a massive job not just to unite the party (assuming that is possible) but to appeal to the whole country.
So. We had better hope that this decision is correct.
Would you vote for a candidate because of their sex, even if you believed them to be less capable of succeeding?
Last edited:
I think one potential interpretation is that it is embarrassing that four women can't beat the one man. So, would give her some leeway.
Yeah that was my interpretation. It was an unnecessary comment though as it feeds the knuckle-draggers.
It's never that precise judgement call though and if everything else is reasonably equal then it's certainly a plus point to have a mixed race woman when you've only had white men in the past in as much as she will have different experiences and insights that she can bring to the role.
For the Starmer lot on here, whats your view ?
Should not, would end up alienating a majority of consituencies again and ultimately irrelevant to the policies needed.
I realise you dont mean anything bad by that comment, but it highlights the exact problem. Women are less likely to succeed in getting traditional senior leadership roles because they're women. Social prejudices work against them in numerous ways that make it harder for them to succeed. So if you want the person "most likely to succeed", you will usually choose a good looking, tall, white, non-disabled man, because those same social prejudices work for them not against them.
The most important question is, can this person do the job? If yes, then I'd vote for a woman even if they had a bigger hill to climb buy virtue of their sex.
Immediately campaigning to rejoin the EU would be political suicide. At this point Remain is so thoroughly dead as a political position that it will be quite some time before Rejoin becomes at all viable. If any of the leadership candidates are still looking to fight this fight then they should be immediately discounted. What their supporters think is neither here nor there really.
Agree but thats not going to stop ultra remain people from joining the party and pushing forward the most remain-ish candidate(The newest jump in membership hasn't been with the cheapest join option, so chances are it isn't a bunch of left wingers).
I didn't use the phrase 'likely to succeed' I said 'capable of succeeding'. You seem to hold a mass of personal prejudices and assume everyone else must too. I can't help but infer from your answer that you would vote for a woman before a man, a short person before a tall one, a non-white before a white and a disabled person before someone not, even though the latter two you often can't even tell by just looking at them. You can avoid all that nonsense simply by voting for the person you think has the best ideas, objectives and ability to carry them out.
The fact Starmer is the only man in the race and is clearly seen as the only electable one, basically points to a under current of sexism within Labour politics. It was similar during the 2016 leadership election when Owen Smith got picked over Angela Eagle(Ok they were both god awful but Smith was on another level of pure shite)and I'm pretty sure there was someone working in Corbyn team who got done for sexist abuse of a co worker, yet this person didn't get fired. When the tories have you beaten in terms of female leaders, there's clearly a problem.
So just on a pure representational level its pretty bleak if Starmer wins.
So just on a pure representational level its pretty bleak if Starmer wins.
Men are shockingly under-represented in the leadership race you're quite right. Maybe some sort of quota system should be introduced?
And because it's the internet I'd best confirm I am actually taking the piss, I personally believe in supporting the individual, not the sex.
I agree. It is a difficult one. When we say the best candidate, we don't even know how much sexist bias we have unconsciously tapped into to arrive at that choice. I mean it turns out even machine learning cannot manage avoiding sexism.
To be fair I think he's seen as the most electable one not the only electable one
I think nandy and Phillips are seen as too moderate by the left
Rlb is seen as a joke by all outside momentum based on thinking continuing the Corbyn policies is a viable option
Thornberry was Lucky to get enough nominations and I don't think anybody thinks she has a chance but more based on her voters are too thick / white van man mistakes in the past
Starmer served in the Corbyn cabinet but clearly wants to take a different direction and without the baggage of thornberry
I think it's pragmatic rather than sexist
And although I'd prefer Phillips I'm comfortable with anybody except rlb or thornberry
So far I'm fine with Nandy or Starmer, though is there any chance we get to know who they'd plan on working closely with as a shadow cabinet? As someone said earlier, the fear with RLB is having Corbyn, Burgon and Abbott involved.
As for the brexit question, I don't believe it's a good idea to immediately push on that front. Remain is dead in the water right now, we need to make the best of all this and see what the future brings before risking splitting everyone again.
As for the brexit question, I don't believe it's a good idea to immediately push on that front. Remain is dead in the water right now, we need to make the best of all this and see what the future brings before risking splitting everyone again.
USDAW union backs Starmer, so he's made the ballot.
USDAW are sexist too it seems.
But this is goes back to the earlier point about what we view as pragmatic, which at the moment seems to be a 50 year old white male lawyer(There really isn't any reason to think Starmer is anymore pragmatic than the other candidates, barring RLB). And to be fair it makes sense why people would have this view considering the country Britain is but also before anyone has a meltdown, this doesn't mean voting for Starmer makes you a woman hater.
Last edited:
It's definitely a blot against Labour that they've never had a female leader. Can't really argue against it being so, particularly given how they've had such a high level of female representation in the PLP for so long.
It's interesting to note, though, that the gender gap in the first ballot, per the latest yougov (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...aml3meh/TimesResults_200115_LabMembers_w2.pdf) actually has Starmer doing better with women than with men. In the final round, there's no gender gap at all.
One key thing with this election, I think, is that people are seeking some level of unity among factions. Long-Bailey's launch article basically ruled her out of being that candidate. Phillips is never going to be that candidate. Thornberry is always going to be liable to controversy. Nandy is asking difficult questions that need answering, but for me personally I have to question her judgement given she helped put through Johnson's deal. That leaves Starmer, who was basically a loyal shadow cabinet member even if he was more enthusiastically pro-EU than the leadership, and people don't have the sense that he's been scheming.
Angela Raynor would've stood a very good chance of winning overall, however she stood aside for her mate Long-Bailey who was determined to run as the full Corbyn successor, which Raynor wouldn't have been.
It's interesting to note, though, that the gender gap in the first ballot, per the latest yougov (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...aml3meh/TimesResults_200115_LabMembers_w2.pdf) actually has Starmer doing better with women than with men. In the final round, there's no gender gap at all.
One key thing with this election, I think, is that people are seeking some level of unity among factions. Long-Bailey's launch article basically ruled her out of being that candidate. Phillips is never going to be that candidate. Thornberry is always going to be liable to controversy. Nandy is asking difficult questions that need answering, but for me personally I have to question her judgement given she helped put through Johnson's deal. That leaves Starmer, who was basically a loyal shadow cabinet member even if he was more enthusiastically pro-EU than the leadership, and people don't have the sense that he's been scheming.
Angela Raynor would've stood a very good chance of winning overall, however she stood aside for her mate Long-Bailey who was determined to run as the full Corbyn successor, which Raynor wouldn't have been.