When Boyle calls the ENTIRE prosper of candidates right wing. Of course they've turned Scotland into Tumblr! That is what a crazy far left tumblrista would say! Yet he'd still vote for them even if he weren't an SNP supporter.Fair enough.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Boyle was a Yes voter, but I don't even think he's a big SNP supporter: I'm sure I remembered him saying that he doesn't vote at all, cause he thinks they're all shite. Just that he thinks the SNP are a bit less shite than the rest, although I'm not sure that he actually votes for them. Might be wrong, though.
I have the same problem with Brand(Although he does seem to do some good & his heart is in the right place)that the idea a party it's only worth voting/supporting if you agree with every single part of their ideology otherwise don't bother voting. That sort thinking get's you nowhere.
Also I think @Cheesy right Boyle was a yes voter and I'm sure I've heard him say before that he's never voted in election(Because their all shite).
Christ you can really tell how shite this leader race is.
Well he's certainly good at advertising them.
Yeah its like Adam Baldwin is a right wing loony (or at least parrots what they say) he called Jeb Bush a liberal on a stream, but I agree with him that the media in general are cnuts.
True. I think he makes a lot of fair points about the Labour candidates though. He's correct in that they don't really seem to have any guided philosophy, but instead will try and pander to voters for votes. Only, they're not really sure how to do that effectively, so aren't very good at it anyway.
Funny enough in that interview I posted Boyle has a dig (rightful so) at Ricky Gervais's show Derek ''I don't get angry when watching Derek I just think how talent Stephen Merchant is'' which is pretty funny but Boyle is very much like Gervais in that 95% of his output is fecking awful but that 5% is gold and with hell lot of help he can make something very good. Although Boyle never had the help so it's mostly shite.
Pretty much agree with that.
SNP are no different, they are the same as labour, the only thing they have that is guided is independence. If Scotland wasn't so left wing they'd have pandered to whatever it would be.
For all that he's not declared a precise timetable, it will be a damnable mess if he is seen to have reneged on those intentions. Should he campaign against his own party and lose the referendum however, well that is bound to hasten his departure. It may as well that he does mind, as i'd question his competence in leading the country outside of the EU. A want of imagination IMO.
Last edited:
I see.
There are some differences between the two parties, to be fair. SNP also support the abolition of trident, which is a pretty big difference, and are moderately against any extra austerity, which Labour are reluctant to commit to.
Even if the two parties are largely the same though, what the SNP have been good at is convincing voters they do have a solid set of guided principles. Even if you’re sceptical yourself, they’ve worked very effectively as a party, and have managed themselves well. They’ve learned what has to be done to win over voters; Labour are all over the place in that regard.
But that's the only difference as I said.
Excellent that another three candidates got on the deputy ballot, shame it took the only non white person in either contest to withdraw though. Should actually be an interesting contest.
Anyone watch the Hustings? Is it at all worth an hour of my life?
Nothing groundbreaking. Burham said all the right things but in trying not to alienate anyone he sort of didn't say much of value. Cooper was similar but didn't come off as well as Burnham, although she did bring up the point that the Labour deficit was caused my the financial crisis rather than the other way around. Kendall and Corbyn both stuck to their guns but Kendall didn't really say anything anyone wanted to hear. She parroted the Tory 'living within our means' spiel vis-a-vis cuts whilst Corbyn argued that creating jobs and alleviating inequality were more important than bringing the deficit down within a parliament. Over the whole debate Corbyn got the loudest applause but he probably needs to be more assertive going forward. The others were keen to get on the mic whenever possible (Burnham overly so, if anything) whereas Corbyn generally waited until he was called upon which, given that his message was getting a good reception, was a missed opportunity for him.
Probably the most interesting thing was on immigration with Kendall advocating adopting the Aussie-points system for immigration. Cooper and Burnham talked about making the system fair but didn't really go into specifics. Corbyn's line was about investing in services, jobs and housing so that neither immigrants or British people missed out. Kendall clearly trying to appeal to Tory voters as well as bringing the working class UKIP vote into the fold.
Basically I'd say Corbyn had the most support, then Burnham, then Cooper then Kendall - with Burnham beating out Cooper because he said the right things rather than on policy.
Cheers Jeff, I did start watching it after I wrote that.
Highlight so far - "A good leader listens" from Liz Kendall, as she does her best do completely ignore the question being asked. Burnham just comes across as a political drone who says anything to get elected, every point he makes is so balanced and vague. Corbyn, and to a lesser extent, Cooper at least seem like real people.
Highlight so far - "A good leader listens" from Liz Kendall, as she does her best do completely ignore the question being asked. Burnham just comes across as a political drone who says anything to get elected, every point he makes is so balanced and vague. Corbyn, and to a lesser extent, Cooper at least seem like real people.
My point is that to give up british people, on a british island, who want to stay british to a country, who are only interested in the oil revenue potential, is never going to land well politically in the UK.
I find Burnham's attempt to play the everyman at odds with the political elite very tiring. Ultimately though I think the Labour Party would look basically identical under Cooper and Burnham, but Cooper at least made a decent case to back her Cabinet record - something Miliband should have done during the election. Honestly I thought Kendall went down like a lead balloon - she's clearly one of those people who basically supports Tory ideas but won't throw in them because she has an idea of herself as a conscientious progressive liberal type.
Similar to what was discussed with Spain really. Basically involving all three parties and attempting to gain international recognition that the people there want to be British and that military action is completely out of the question. Even though Spain still claims Gibraltar, it's now changed its policy to the point where it's ruled out any military attempt to take back the territory. That's progress - if only because we don't have to spend anywhere near as much money defending it. It might be a long shot but you know, it's one of those things it seems daft not to try. Worst case scenario Argentina comes off as completely unreasonable and loses any sympathy it might have over the issue internationally.
Anyway, I totally agree with you that any suggestion of handing the islands over would be electoral suicide for any candidate regardless of political leanings.
I just don't agree with appearing to give Argentina credence to their claim, and as per the last invasion, if the government are up shite creek and think that invading the Falklands will gain them some support, then they will do it, regardless.
Completely agree with all of that. Corbyn, Cooper, then Burnham for me. Kendall isn't an option.
Kendall is basically at the centre of the electorate so would stand more chance winning in 2020, Cooper and Burnham are at about the centre of the Labour party so have more chance of winning the leadership. None of them are great presentation wise and the debate itself was dull as feck (other than Burnham's screw up at the end anyway). If Umunna was standing he'd probably walk this and have a decent chance in 2020.
I was waiting for Kendall to rip of the face mask and reveal a smirking Cameron - The political idea that Labour need to more like the tories to win is crazy, it will lead to more apathy from their old core support who will drift to ukip, greens, even a rejuvanated Lirbrals under a new leader.
Wilderness years for labour judging from that panel - Unless Corbyn does somehow gain support and give a real choice it will be easy street for the conservatives without an implosion.
Wilderness years for labour judging from that panel - Unless Corbyn does somehow gain support and give a real choice it will be easy street for the conservatives without an implosion.
100 years of labours history has shown that securing the support of the left alone isn't enough to get into government anyway. Is that any different now?
Corbyn is a back bencher, not a leader. You may like his principles, but he wouldn't be able to lead a united party into an election. There's much more to running the party than where you sit on the left to right spectrum.
I think Corbyn himself said that adding the likes of the greens and disenfranchised ukippers could've won about 20 extra seats last time round. I'm not sure if he was deliberately arguing against his own position but there you go.
No not really.
Any left leaning Labour Party faces a very big problem which is England specificity is (and as you mentioned)always has been a conservative country. It's very hard to be the people's party when the people themselves aren't interested in the people. I'm not sure how a lefty leaning Labour Party could convince the voting public to listen to their opinion let alone get them voting for Labour.
For example how the feck could someone like Jeremy Corbyn(Or really anyone in the leaders debate)convince a UKIP voter to vote for a left leaning non immigrate hating Labour Party, I mean you could sit there and list a number of facts to show the positive of impact migration and all that jazz but none of that means feck all to old joe public who's angry that his local highstreet now has a shop selling only Polish goods. And that's just the votes Labour have to win back.
England is very much like the television station 'Channel 4'. In that it shows signs of progressive ideas and equality, from a distance it appears to be a left leaning and quite self-aware but watch it for more than 10 minutes you start to realise that it's actually a very inward place (in a very sinister way) where actually what people really want to do is blame the poor and to punish people for struggling. Oh and to laugh at fat people.
Last edited:
Having watched a few snippets from the Newsnight debate, Yvette Cooper produced the best showing i thought. Burnham's performance shared some similarities with Miliband, although he is more slimy than Ed and has the tendency to come across as rude on occasion.
Far be it from me to be act as a Labour Party adviser, but i'd suggest that they don't repeat the error you just made there. If you patronise voters, or lump their concerns together in one objectionable mass worthy only of derision, what do you imagine the outcome will be?
Far be it from me to be act as a Labour Party adviser, but i'd suggest that they don't repeat the error you just made there. If you patronise voters, or lump their concerns together in one objectionable mass worthy only of derision, what do you imagine the outcome will be?
tbh Liz Kendall looks like she's not ready for this level yet and Corbyn is a non starter. With Burnham's 'honest northerner' routine getting real old real quick, I think Cooper may end up sneaking it.
I fancy Cooper a bit. And there's not many politicians I'd say that about.
He's actually got a lot of leadership experience and he's a highly respected and well-liked figure within the House of Commons. He's chair or vice-chair of numerous all-party Parliamentary committees, he was on the executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the 80s, he's a Vice-Chair of CND and the chair of the Stop The War coalition amongst many others.
He's not a back-bencher because of any failing on his part, he's a back-bencher because he's always been unwilling to compromise his values to seek personal advancement.
Cooper had a decent showing today, think she'll be getting my second preference. Burnham third just in case the worst happens.
There can't be more than a handful of seats where labour would have won even if every Green voter voted labour?
It was more than just the Greens but yeah, either way, nothing like the numbers to suggest it would be a serious political strategy, unless your goal was suicide.
I used to work for a back bencher, who was chair of of numerous APP groups as well, it means nothing in terms of leadership of a party.
As for that last comment - you have absolutely no idea if that's true.
That is the case in the south but never in the north.
I joined the Labour party to vote in this leadership election but struggling to care now. 2020 belongs to the Tories 
.
.I joined the Labour party to vote in this leadership election but struggling to care now. 2020 belongs to the Tories
Yeah, makes me wonder what will happen once the Tories inevitably win the next election. If, say, Kendall becomes leader and Labour lose anyway will Labour decide they need to move even more to the right or that being a tory-lite party doesn't work?
If Kendall becomes leader the Labour party will disintegrate
Yeah, just like it did under Blair.
Hang on...
Hang on...
Are any of the leadership candidates the least bit Eurosceptic?
If Cameron bungles the referendum (by lobbying to remain in the EU but losing) and is forced to resign ahead of schedule, an avid Europhile won't be as well equipped to take advantage of any disorder amongst the Tory ranks.
If Cameron bungles the referendum (by lobbying to remain in the EU but losing) and is forced to resign ahead of schedule, an avid Europhile won't be as well equipped to take advantage of any disorder amongst the Tory ranks.