Why does this keep happening man?
There's only so many hours in the day for posting, people have to use them wisely.
(Also my vocabulary range is god awful tbh)
Last edited:
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
There's only so many hours in the day for posting, people have to use them wisely.
(Also my vocabulary range is god awful tbh)
I regularly go back and remove phrases I think I overuse from my posts in fear of one of you bastards doing this to me.
Shame. I was looking forward to you asking about his relationship with his mother.
I regularly go back and remove phrases I think I overuse from my posts in fear of one of you bastards doing this to me.
Shame. I was looking forward to you asking about his relationship with his mother.
kl.
"So your mother voted for brexit and loves Boris. How does that make you feel?"
Well worth a read. Turns of the left behind traditional working class narrative isn't really true.
Also these people are about to get fecked by Universal credit.
Also these people are about to get fecked by Universal credit.
Why are you geniuses comparing how to approach a leadership election with how to approach a general election. Two different audiences. Seriously some of yous talk shite with such authority. Waste of time innit.
Unless you are arguing that what he promises the membership should be different to what he promises to the rest of us, the fact is he published them on twitter, asked for them to be shared and said they were pledges, ie things he's promising to do. So they are out there to be criticised.
Since we're talking about talking shite, let's not forget your relentless defence of Corbyn as being just the ticket to win labour the election...
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this.
Are you saying he's only saying those things to win leadership, then will radically change for a GE? And if so, are you happy with that?
You don't understand much do you.
I'm arguing that the presentation should he different yeah. This shouldn't need explai ING and yet you don't even get it the first time I explain.
Nothing wrong with trying to learn. I'm sorry my honest question offended you in some way.
Of course, if you want to be an arse about things then you do you mate
Nothing wrong with trying to learn. I'm sorry my honest question offended you in some way.
Of course, if you want to be an arse about things then you do you mate
Alright sorry for being mean to you.
It's a combination of the fact that the GE won't be for another 5 years (or something will have happened that's important enough to cause the government to collapse), and the fact that we're talking about messaging here.
Starmer could greater distill his actual election messaging while keeping these pledges so it's a not a great comparison to make.
Nandy has been better at messaging in my opinion though and I'll probably end up voting for her even though she was not originally my top choice.
i haven't been paying much attention recently mind.
brwned, as sea levels rise and refugees are atom-bombed on the borders of fortress europe -
i don't like the arrogance of those saying the govts got their strategy wrong and it shows tribalism to refuse to listen tot he CEO of BP.
i don't like the arrogance of those saying the govts got their strategy wrong and it shows tribalism to refuse to listen tot he CEO of BP.
To be fair to you, I can see why you can't be so arsed in here. I myself have been annoying to you, I know a little bit more about it all than it seems (still not a lot mind!
). Like why there's a difference between GE and Leadership, but also why some people talk and behave like they do. Funny thing is, I think we'd actually be closer aligned politically than you think if we were not on here and able to speak our minds truly.But my stupid little games aside, in all seriousness, my post earlier about Starmer's phrasing was true in the sense that he's clearly playing the game to get the leadership and there's a real chance he'll win like that, but since he put it out there on Twitter to everyone why not play the GE game too? Either way, maybe I'm not an entrenched in the ideals of socialism as some of you in here, but I honestly think at least it's best to have a Labour leader pretending in power than a Tory. And although the next election is 5 years out, I think if you are going to play one game, you might as well play them both.
Newsnight special now, RLB and Nandy most impressive so far for me.
just watched the newsnight special on iplayer liked nandy but looks like it is going to be keir,every time they looked like they were going to kick off they backed away to show no bickering so it seemed there was not a big difference between them.
You know they're feeling the heat with the constant playing of the Blair/Iraq card.
I thought it was strange so much time was devoted to Iraq in the debate. I just can't imagine any voter voting in 2024 will be thinking about Iraq.
It's important to virtually no one in the general electorate anymore. It only matters to a small faction, many of which make up a good portion of the Labour membership. Blair left office nearly 13 years ago and is just a fading memory for most and not relevant to their real world concerns today. By the time the next election comes there will be voters with no living memory of Tony Blair's rule.
To me, the constant pushing of the narrative is only indicative of the Corbynista faction of the party fearing they are losing the battle for the ideological heart of the party.
Also just watched Newsnight. I disagree about Starmer, I thought he studiously avoided taking actual positions and talked in generalities only. Nandy is the only one talking about actually changing the party, she doesn't say how but appears to be the only hope of members that want that to happen.
They're just trying to stoke the embers of Corbyn's campaign from 5 years ago. Trouble is the GE result took the heat out it all in a way I've found very surprising, given how heated things were just three months ago. I think the membership are just tired & deflated at this point and dont want to revisit the arguments of the last 5 years. Whoever wins Labour is going to have a policy platform that's pretty left wing & most people are just happy to settle for that right now. The only people going for Blair and wanting open selections are the die hards who will never stop grinding those axes.
Just out of the Jewish Labour hustings. First time I’ve ever attended one of these events, and the first one I’ve watched properly from this campaign. Really interesting event. Clearly antisemitism was the focus, but I thought it was good to see each of RLB, Thornberry and Starmer on difficult ground, given their positions in the shadow cabinet over the last four years. Nandy had the easiest hand but played it very well, and ‘won’ the hustings by a landslide. One at a time;
Nandy: Very impressed. Based on little other than perceptions of confidence, I assumed I’d vote Starmer, but now I’m completely unsure. Nandy was the most personable, by far the best communicator, and also seemed the most empathetic and well, genuine. Want to read more about/ by her, but remarkably impressed.
Starmer: Meh. I can’t tell how much is a function of being the front runner, but just comes across as if he’s being too much of a politician, and trying his hardest to say nothing while passionately saying a lot. I also dislike his nasally, minor Ed Miliband voice.
Thornberry: Always comes across well in these things. Highly intelligent, charismatic, witty... but would obviously be a disastrous Labour leader. She’ll at least keep her seat at the top table of the shadow cabinet.
RLB: Had a dreadful evening. Started poorly, and quickly went downhill. Worst moment was when Peston got her to agree that a statement was racist, and then asking why the NEC/ Leadership Office signed off on it last summer. “I don’t remember”. Sunk into herself after that and probably spoke 50% less than any of the other candidates. Will clearly not win the contest.
Nandy: Very impressed. Based on little other than perceptions of confidence, I assumed I’d vote Starmer, but now I’m completely unsure. Nandy was the most personable, by far the best communicator, and also seemed the most empathetic and well, genuine. Want to read more about/ by her, but remarkably impressed.
Starmer: Meh. I can’t tell how much is a function of being the front runner, but just comes across as if he’s being too much of a politician, and trying his hardest to say nothing while passionately saying a lot. I also dislike his nasally, minor Ed Miliband voice.
Thornberry: Always comes across well in these things. Highly intelligent, charismatic, witty... but would obviously be a disastrous Labour leader. She’ll at least keep her seat at the top table of the shadow cabinet.
RLB: Had a dreadful evening. Started poorly, and quickly went downhill. Worst moment was when Peston got her to agree that a statement was racist, and then asking why the NEC/ Leadership Office signed off on it last summer. “I don’t remember”. Sunk into herself after that and probably spoke 50% less than any of the other candidates. Will clearly not win the contest.
This is very much where I am on the contest as a whole. Starmer might well be playing it safe since he's in the lead in popularity terms - which lets be honest is a sensible strategy - but he's offered almost nothing so far in terms of new ideas or a critique of where Labour went wrong. Indeed, at risk of being considered woke, my view is that he's only front runner because he's a tall white man that looks and sounds like what people expect a leader to. Which might be a reason to appoint him, since the wider public will take the same view, but its a pretty depressing reason. On policy and performances, meh is exactly the word. The big worry is that he'll continue being meh when he's leader. Miliband without the personality...
Nandy on the other hand feels genuine, is asking all the right questions & seems strongest on improving the party structure outside of London, which is a pre-requisite to success in my view. Most importantly for me though, she's the only one who seems to have any urgency to her campaign. It might seem like a long time til the next election, but in truth Labour need to be settled and steady by middle of the Parliament if they're going to appear as a viable Government by the end of it. So whatever work Labour needs to get done, the lion's share has to be done in the next 2 to 3 years or it'll be too late to convince people after that. The others don't act like there's an uphill struggle ahead.
Thornberry's great for Sunday morning politics shows, but not for the leadership. RLB is clearly inadequate, you basically only vote for her if you want the same people running the party behind the scenes as when Corbyn was in charge.
No he’s completely right. Your problem on this site (and I imagine, by extension, anywhere else where you talk about politics) is a complete inability to listen to other people’s points of view, and not believing anything other than that your opinion is the only truth.
Not to come across all West Wing either, but we can (and do) all learn from each other on here. At the very least, understand why people vote other ways or dislike your preferred political leader or party. If you understand why they don’t agree with your point of view then you can learn what you need to do to change and win them over.
Or you can become increasingly insular, bitter to those with a different view from you, and make them dislike you even more. It’s pretty easy to be civil on somewhere like here, far easier than on Facebook or Twitter. Try that for a while, and I promise you will learn something from the people you’re belittling at the moment.
Starmer probably doing a Mourinho. I am backing him but in truth, it's a bit pointless. We aren't overturning an 80+ majority anytime soon.
I don't think Starmer will lay a glove on Johnson. I think RLB and Nandy have a chance, although both would have to grow into it.
It's not strange, it's essential to understanding where Labour is now. By playing the Iraq joker card, they can shut down any conversation about the successes of the hated New Labour.
Because "Iraq defines the Blair government" it means that the Blair government, by definition, never did anything good. Which means New Labour was bad. Which means anyone opposing New Labour - ie the current Left - is good.
Usual disclaimer applies - Iraq was a bad decision, I didn't support it, and it shouldn't have happened. Nonetheless, "Iraq" is many things now, and one of the things it is, is a shibboleth.
Winning outright is pretty unlikely, but Labour should be aiming to build the platform to win thereafter. A bit like what May did in 2017 in the Red Wall seats, she actually made large inroads into them without winning them, but making them winnable battlegrounds at the following election. Labour have to do that in the Red Wall seats and Scotland and middle England, while keeping their strongholds. So, a tough gig for sure. But they don't need to tip them all over in one go, and if that's their strategy from the outset, then they'll be well positioned should some unforeseen catastrophe hit the Tories.
Totally agree. It's a shame the BBC chose highlight it so, I understand they saw it as a way to provoke confrontation between the contenders, but I'm more interested in the way forward than the past.
Has to happen. We'll know Labour is on its way back as a serious political party, when "Iraq" goes away.
The conversation I had was well the world is a complex place, my politics and you're politics are most likely wrong, we have to worry about being in our own bubbles, etc. Which ok if you've got something out of that, then great but as I've said before I just don't that find it particular interesting. It's like going into a match day thread and saying - Well you lose some and you win some, who really knows ? And then calling anyone tribalistic for saying you're opinion is utterly pointless. Again great if someone learned something new from that but personally I've heard it over a million times, it's every second opinion piece since 2016, I find it utterly tiresome(And in the long term completely useless).
Overall I think it comes down to a difference in how liberals/centre left and socialists(Although most don't sadly) view politics. I don't think politics moves forward on a mass scale by changing people views. There's no amount of gotcha questions, ''facts'' or grand speeches that will change people minds(Again on a massive scale), ideas comes from people's material conditions, people don't simply believe conservative horse shit because they've read the daily mail, the mail is appealing to a base that is already there. The reason that shit connects with people is because there's a ton of property ''owning'' pensioners(Which basically turns them into tories), who are isolated and scared and have a ''common sense'' that is vastly different to that of younger people(Common senses are decades in the making), plus a million other factors. Newspapers like the Daily Mail of course play a part but stopping you're old granny from reading the Mail and putting her through a clockwork orange style machine as John Oilver clips are blasted into her eye balls isn't actually going to change politics. The perfect example of this is China, ''Marxism'' is thought in schools, there is a giant wall mural of all the different languages the communist manifesto has been translated into, there's cartoons of Marx and yet the workers revolution is......................nowhere to be seen, in fact current China is the only place where you can still see the true power of capitalism.
I'm more than happy to have a conversation but I'm far more interesting in hearing people actual views on the world, then the pros of politeness(I didn't even get an answer to which shape democracy should be!) This is a joke
Last edited:
Can only speak for myself, but more posts like this one above, and less smart-arse memes (and the general sense you sometimes give that much of the conversation on here is beneath you), would be great.
Yup, no surprise at all. Though it looks like she basically won 51/49 - I’m shocked it was that close.
Love ya SS, Happy Valentines xoxo
I saw a twitter post speculating that Burgon is really a Borat-esque comedy project. It made me wonder.
You can't just take away part of a man soul and expect him to be ok with it. But no really I'll take on aboard the advice, cheers.
This want some people on here want, right ?