And now the next kerfuffle - the Labour Leadership

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, IT BEGINS.

There seem to be two front-runners right now.

Sir Kier Stammer - Shadow Brexit Secretary, pro Remain, probably involved in a plot last year to replace Boris Johnson with Kenneth Clarke, which may or may not have been stymied by Corbyn's refusal to "get out of the way". This is, to my knowledge, the most interesting this he has ever done.


Rebecca Long Bailey, Shadow Business Secretary - very pro Corbyn and therefore the "continuity candidate" or as I like to call her the "circling the plughole candidate".

Interestingly, Unison has come out for Stammer whilst Unite is expected to come out for Long-Bailey - indicating a split in the Union Movement.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/08/sir-keir-starmer-receives-major-trade-union-boost-takes-early/

[Furunculus]

Where is a kinnock when you need one? Come on son!

#draintheswamp

[rory_20_uk]

Last thing I saw Kier had more votes from MPs than all the other candidates together. Given he's the only man running this is disgraceful mysogony. And even more disgraceful given how many MPs are women...

Anyhoo, the UK really needs an opposition that is vaguely competent and not just "not the government".

I didn't realise they internally use a proportional representation internally to choose their "leader". Apparently good enough for them but not something the country can be trusted with.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

I didn't realise they internally use a proportional representation internally to choose their "leader". Apparently good enough for them but not something the country can be trusted with.

~:smoking:

Clive Lewis (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/labour-leadership-race-candidates-pitches-so-far) supports proportion representation.

Keir Starmer and Long Bailey were part of the absent majority in the 2016 vote on proportional representation for electing MPs and reducing the voting age to 16 in 2016. But Starmer may be more open to it now? Here is a dedicated article to Labour leadership contestants on PR.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2016-07-20-50-commons/mp/25353
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/news/2020/1/7/labour-leadership-hopefuls-on-electoral-reform-what-we-know-so-far

[edyzmedieval]

So in other words... even Labour is divided on how to proceed? Aren't they mostly Remain?

[Beskar]

*Makes yearly post on how we should move to Single Transferable Vote. though this time, without video*

[Greyblades]

So in other words... even Labour is divided on how to proceed? Aren't they mostly Remain?

The parts that didnt defect last month, maybe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In a sign that cracks are starting to show Lisa Nandy attacks Corbyn for basically being a Russian stooge.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/15/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-big-ben-date-labour-leadership/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So in other words... even Labour is divided on how to proceed? Aren't they mostly Remain?

Apologies for not addressing this earlier.

Most of Labour's MP's are pro-Remain as is the majority of their party membership - though it's a smaller majoirty than some would have you believe.

A significant majority of their "core voters" whom they rely on to win seats, especially older working class people, are Pro-Leave.

[Pannonian]

Apologies for not addressing this earlier.

Most of Labour's MP's are pro-Remain as is the majority of their party membership - though it's a smaller majoirty than some would have you believe.

A significant majority of their "core voters" whom they rely on to win seats, especially older working class people, are Pro-Leave.

Where did you get this? What Labour constituency and Labour voter-centred polling I'd seen said that Hartlepool was the only Labour constituency where Labour voters had a pro-Leave majority. Every other Labour constituency had a pro-Remain majority among Labour voters.

[Beskar]

We need to do the Nordic thing and get new blood in.

[Montmorency]

We need to do the Scandinavian thing and get new blood in.

Ooh, I have no idea what this means. Please explain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We need to do the Nordic thing and get new blood in.

Well, Kinnock junior spent some time in Denmark...

Realistically, though, a lot of the candidates are quite young, it's just the front runner who's older, and he's hardly geriatric.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where did you get this? What Labour constituency and Labour voter-centred polling I'd seen said that Hartlepool was the only Labour constituency where Labour voters had a pro-Leave majority. Every other Labour constituency had a pro-Remain majority among Labour voters.

I respectfully don't really buy it. I'm not convinced people answer the polls truthfully.

[Pannonian]

I respectfully don't really buy it. I'm not convinced people answer the polls truthfully.

So where did you get the information that you claim? If you don't believe something, but claim something else, presumably you have evidence backing your claim.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So where did you get the information that you claim? If you don't believe something, but claim something else, presumably you have evidence backing your claim.

It seems that, despite the polls, there are always plenty of supposed Labour voters to be interviewed who support Brexit, especially older voters.

So it's anecdotal.

[Pannonian]

It seems that, despite the polls, there are always plenty of supposed Labour voters to be interviewed who support Brexit, especially older voters.

So it's anecdotal.

Anecdotally, Question Time almost always had a Leave-heavy audience, even in Remain areas. Don't you think selection may have something to do with it?

The Remain argument was always complex, weighing pros and cons along economic and cultural lines. Thanks to our media, there never was an all-encompassing cultural or philosophical argument. And also thanks to our media, there were always simple red lines for Leavers to set as their decisive argument, such as rory's ECJ, your take on sovereignty, etc.

Faced with either minutes-long argument with an interviewee, or a soundbite under 10 seconds, which do you think newscasters will broadcast?

[edyzmedieval]

We need to do the Nordic thing and get new blood in.

So do a Finland and appoint young candidates?

(Sanna Marin, the new Finnish PM, is 34)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So do a Finland and appoint young candidates?

(Sanna Marin, the new Finnish PM, is 34)

But all the old people have to take their turn​ first!

[Furunculus]

fingers crossed for nandy, we need a decent opposition.
starmer if we have to.
rlb if we all fancy a good laugh as labour collapses in another five years of bile and turmoil.

close to terminal...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd argue Labour has already fractured, actually, it's increasingly clear that traditional Labour voters in Scotland have gone over to the SNP which is why Labour now has such a hard time getting seats. Admittedly, the Conservatives don't do well North of the border either but if you'd told me ten to fifteen years ago they'd have more Scottish MP's than Labour I'd have called you a fool.

As far as the party as a whole collapsing in on itself, there'd need to be a viable alternative first. The Lib Dems could be that, but they'd first need to decide between being a mostly Urban or mostly rural party.

[Montmorency]

Reserving comment for only the contents of this article (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-iran-mailer-fearmongering_n_5e273faac5b673621f7cfa3f):


“We live in the most dangerous moment in a generation,” the mailer says in bold white font at the bottom. “Who is ready to lead us?”
[...]
“Joe Biden: Strong, Steady Leadership.”

Sounds familiar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_stable).

Edit: OK, you know what? I should have searched (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/risk-or-safety-the-dividing-line-between-joe-biden-and-his-challengers/2019/09/08/af425420-d0ce-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html) before I posted, because it's no mere resemblance.


Joe Biden’s first Iowa television ad this summer flashed four quick photos of the former vice president with Barack Obama, along with a tagline about as far as possible from their old “hope and change” rallying cry.

“Strong, steady, stable leadership,” intoned a gruff narrator.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would a mod like to weigh in on whether or not this is Spam?

[Beskar]

Would a mod like to weigh in on whether or not this is Spam?

I would say it was posted in the wrong topic than spam. Probably meant for the Democrat one.

[Montmorency]

I would say it was posted in the wrong topic than spam. Probably meant for the Democrat one.

It's at least as pertinent to UK politics as it is to US politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Labour sees a 20% surge in membership off the back of the election race: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51245211

I wonder if this is people returning because Corbyn is on the way out, whether its people wanting to vote in another Socialist or people wanting to wrest the party back from the Hard Left.

we shall see.

[edyzmedieval]

With regards to the post - it's somewhere along the line between wrong post and correct post. There are parallels to be drawn between the two political systems but not so much in this case.

[edyzmedieval]

Labour sees a 20% surge in membership off the back of the election race: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51245211

I wonder if this is people returning because Corbyn is on the way out, whether its people wanting to vote in another Socialist or people wanting to wrest the party back from the Hard Left.

we shall see.

I read a well balanced article recently in GQ UK about this - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/labour-jeremy-corbyn-general-election

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

With regards to the post - it's somewhere along the line between wrong post and correct post. There are parallels to be drawn between the two political systems but not so much in this case.

I don't see how a Democrat adopting the rhetoric of a failed Conservative Prime Minister has anything to do with the Labour Leadership election. This is not a "general" UK politics thread and most of us agreed a few years ago that those "mega-threads" aren't really very useful - they're just a mess.


I read a well balanced article recently in GQ UK about this - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/labour-jeremy-corbyn-general-election

So, I read that entire article. The author seems extremely harsh on both sides, and it's worth noting that they reduce both to being essentially morally bankrupt husks. It reads very much like a "call to action" for the moderate Left and centre-Left.

Speaking of Corbyn's supporters, it looks like Len McClusky is trying to have his cake and eat it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51255529


Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr McCluskey said: "I'm absolutely convinced that there were those individuals who opposed Jeremy Corbyn's election right from the beginning, used the anti-Semitism issue - which I think is quite despicable that they did this on such an important subject - to undermine Corbyn, there's no doubt about that."

But he said that the party had "never handled the anti-Semitism issue correctly", adding: "We should have done things quicker."

Now that he's in Power Boris Johnson is going to be rather difficult to remove - he's not unpopular, he's not stupid and he's not a bad political campaigner. None of which makes him necessarily the right person to by Prime Minister, though I think he probably was the right person to handle Brexit. Kier Stammer is the centrist candidate with the best chance of beating Johnson, but he's a bit boring and therefore difficult o differentiate from, well, anything else.

[Montmorency]

I don't see how a Democrat adopting the rhetoric of a failed Conservative Prime Minister has anything to do with the Labour Leadership election. This is not a "general" UK politics thread and most of us agreed a few years ago that those "mega-threads" aren't really very useful - they're just a mess.

I should have posted it in the general thread.

[edyzmedieval]

So, I read that entire article. The author seems extremely harsh on both sides, and it's worth noting that they reduce both to being essentially morally bankrupt husks. It reads very much like a "call to action" for the moderate Left and centre-Left.

Which is a sensible way of putting it - instead of having extremists on both ends capture the majorities, we need the moderate centre of which many are part of to also take part in the political process.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which is a sensible way of putting it - instead of having extremists on both ends capture the majorities, we need the moderate centre of which many are part of to also take part in the political process.

True, although if people refuse to mobalise there's not a lot you can do. Boris Johnson is really a centre-right politician who has pivoted more to the right because that's where the votes are - rather like Mitt Rommey in 2012. That being said, if Labour continue towards the hard left the Conservatives will become more moderate as people turned off from Labour gravitate to the "other" party and exert an intellectual gravity that drags them back to the centre. Eventually Labour will either concede to a new, more moderate, left-wing party or they will become more moderate themselves.

Ramsey Macdonald and Clem Attlee must be ashamed, though.

[Furunculus]

Which is a sensible way of putting it - instead of having extremists on both ends capture the majorities, we need the moderate centre of which many are part of to also take part in the political process.

which is what FPTP is supposed to achieve, because you can't achieve power without appealing broadly across the geographic and political divide.
the 'common ground' in short (which is a different thing to the centre ground).

[Beskar]

which is what FPTP is supposed to achieve, because you can't achieve power without appealing broadly across the geographic and political divide.
the 'common ground' in short (which is a different thing to the centre ground).

Unfortunately it is supposed. In practice, it is the largest minority ruling.

This is where a system like STV would come into play, as you need to reach a threshold of votes and also allows people to state their preferences more distinctly.

So for example, the person voting for the Brexit party who won't win may view the Conservatives as an alternative. Therefore, those who feel the same would have a transfer of votes to them and having a better reflection of the population (ie: that candidate represents lets say 42% of the area now, rather than 34%). Similar to the ideological aligned/pact of Greens & LibDems. It also helps reduce tactical voting as people are more likely to vote for the person/party who more closely represents their views, without feeling it has been 'wasted'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interestingly, 14388 votes on the Telegraph website but Stammer and Long-Bailey level on 42%

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/29/nobody-labour-willing-confront-real-reasons-catastrophic-defeat/

[Furunculus]

Unfortunately it is supposed. In practice, it is the largest minority ruling.

This is where a system like STV would come into play, as you need to reach a threshold of votes and also allows people to state their preferences more distinctly.

So for example, the person voting for the Brexit party who won't win may view the Conservatives as an alternative. Therefore, those who feel the same would have a transfer of votes to them and having a better reflection of the population (ie: that candidate represents lets say 42% of the area now, rather than 34%). Similar to the ideological aligned/pact of Greens & LibDems. It also helps reduce tactical voting as people are more likely to vote for the person/party who more closely represents their views, without feeling it has been 'wasted'.

i accept this benefit, but id want to weigh stv against my dislike of coalition politics.
i like a majoritarian electoral system (different from majoritarian government), and would reject systems greatly encourage that outcome.

[Beskar]

i like a majoritarian electoral system (different from majoritarian government), and would reject systems greatly encourage that outcome.

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarian_democracy) (which is different from this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarian_representation)), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy).

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarian_democracy) (which is different from this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarian_representation)), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy).

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

Well, the best system of government is a benign but competent Tyrant, as originally expounded by Aristotle and demonstrated by Terry Pratchett. So, anything else is a compromise designed to prevent the ascension of a malign Tyrant.

It's worth noting that recent elections, whilst not necessarily returning MP's with absolute majorities have tended to reflect the national mood. We threw Labour out in 2010 but were only lukewarm on Cameron whilst quite enchanted with Clegg - result was a Lib-Dem Coalition. In 2015 we were ready to give David Cameron an actual working majority after he legislated for something like a Living Wage and homosexual marriage. In 2017 a lot of us felt Theresa May was the wrong person for the job but even more so didn't want Corbyn - Hung Parliament with minority Conservative Government. Then, 2019 a lot of people a sick and./or afraid of Corbyn, his hypocrisy, his racism and his general incompetence whilst Boris Johnson is offering higher wages, lower taxes and an end to Brexit.

Result: Thundering Conservative Majority.

[Furunculus]

Are you able to explain this a little better for me?

If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarian_democracy) (which is different from this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarian_representation)), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy).

If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?



As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.

In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.

What i see a majoritiarian electoral system giving me is radical policy (even if it is occasionally radical in the opposite direction to my preference).
Fail quickly, fail fast.
Adapt and thrive, fail and stagnate.

As a side effect of having to have the coalition in place before the election (within the party), it encourages the platform to be as wide as possible in order to appeal to an election winning common-ground as well as their voter heartlands. Where consensual systems lead to the coalition after the election (between parties), allowing manifesto's to be ejected, success/failure criteria difficult to establish, and permissive of fringe parties well outside the common ground to succeed, and be a part of policy making.

There's lots of good things about proportional/consensual politics, but lots of failings too.

[Montmorency]

It's worth noting that recent elections, whilst not necessarily returning MP's with absolute majorities have tended to reflect the national mood. We threw Labour out in 2010 but were only lukewarm on Cameron whilst quite enchanted with Clegg - result was a Lib-Dem Coalition. In 2015 we were ready to give David Cameron an actual working majority after he legislated for something like a Living Wage and homosexual marriage. In 2017 a lot of us felt Theresa May was the wrong person for the job but even more so didn't want Corbyn - Hung Parliament with minority Conservative Government. Then, 2019 a lot of people a sick and./or afraid of Corbyn, his hypocrisy, his racism and his general incompetence whilst Boris Johnson is offering higher wages, lower taxes and an end to Brexit.

Result: Thundering Conservative Majority.

The flaw in the "national mood" story is that the difference between a hung parliament and a thundering majority is 5% of the vote.


In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.

I agree in principle but, uh - so you are a radical!

[Pannonian]

In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.

What i see a majoritiarian electoral system giving me is radical policy (even if it is occasionally radical in the opposite direction to my preference).
Fail quickly, fail fast.
Adapt and thrive, fail and stagnate.

As a side effect of having to have the coalition in place before the election (within the party), it encourages the platform to be as wide as possible in order to appeal to an election winning common-ground as well as their voter heartlands. Where consensual systems lead to the coalition after the election (between parties), allowing manifesto's to be ejected, success/failure criteria difficult to establish, and permissive of fringe parties well outside the common ground to succeed, and be a part of policy making.

There's lots of good things about proportional/consensual politics, but lots of failings too.

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

[Furunculus]

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

https://professorbuzzkill.com/qnq-26-zhou-enlai/

[Pannonian]

https://professorbuzzkill.com/qnq-26-zhou-enlai/

You mean never. So basically you get to go for as radical a change as possible, regardless of mandate or not, and there is never any argument against it.

[rory_20_uk]

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

Radical change - leaving something that the UK only joined under 50 years ago and changed several times in the meantime.

When was the success or failure of the EU established? Given that what was initially joined was radically different to what was left, there surely was a review at each change. Or not.

Or more broadly, when is there a review of every major policy decision the government takes undertaken? Practically never.

A desire to bang the drum on one issue is on one hand laudable in how many threads can be derailed to the one issue, but is also very, very wearing.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

You mean never. So basically you get to go for as radical a change as possible, regardless of mandate or not, and there is never any argument against it.



yes. Precisely.

and you get to argue for some milquetoast consensual democracy where choice is carefully hemmed into a safe path via constitutional guardrails to make sure that tomorrow is quite like yesterday.

obviously, i think that is a terrible idea if we desire the long term survival of an adaptable and agile nation-state, but there we are...

[Greyblades]

After the last 25 years of shih tzu after shih tzu, duck hunt after duck hunt, I think I am truly sick of major spurr of the moment reform

I dont want yet another experiment nor do I want a foreign transplant from a different system I want the wreckage of the blair cameron and may years to be fixed or undone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

-before edit-

You might want to edit that....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At what point do you assess the success or failure of Brexit?

20-50 years.

Now, can we get off Brexit and back on topic, please?

[Pannonian]

20-50 years.

Now, can we get off Brexit and back on topic, please?

You and others turned the discussion to the benefits of the current electoral system. Furunculus argued that the system gives a mandate for radical reform. So I asked him how long it would take for the most radical recent reform to be assessed. Is this not a natural progression of your thread of discussion? Or does radical reform exist as some kind of eternal revolution a la Mao Zedong that does not need to be assessed, merely embarked on without thought of consequences?

[Pannonian]

yes. Precisely.

and you get to argue for some milquetoast consensual democracy where choice is carefully hemmed into a safe path via constitutional guardrails to make sure that tomorrow is quite like yesterday.

obviously, i think that is a terrible idea if we desire the long term survival of an adaptable and agile nation-state, but there we are...

How do you assess change to be effective and positive if, as you argue, the principle of change is the only principle that needs to be observed, and results do not matter until some point in the distant future when all the participants are dead? You quote Zhou Enlai to support your argument as though he actually does, when Zhou was actually from the progressive branch of the CCP (his protege famously coined the black and white cat quote to decry dogmatism). Your argument for radical reform for radical reform's sake is more reminiscent of Mao Zedong's call for eternal revolution, aka the cultural revolution. That argument led to the destruction of China's historical heritage for the sake of change.

I think I can do without that kind of adaptation and agility. I actually admire Zhou Enlai's school of pragmatism, gradualism and cooperation, and I despise the Maoist doctrine of violent change for change's sake.

[Furunculus]

I don't have to take responsibility for gov't policy as an individual, none of us do, we're only one more feather on the scales of what is a collective action.

so asking how long do we wait to weigh success is impossible to answer.
i might wait six months.
you might demand six years.
a political party may ask for the patience to see through one more heave.
and the electorate may kerbstomp the gov't for trying their patience.

personally i work to the new labour mantra:
first term to make the reforms.
second term to embed them as normal.
if it survives a third term then you have become part of the myth and legend of the nation.
so ten years.

[Greyblades]

You might want to edit that....

Didnt think beskar still had admin powers.

The edited version robs it of the sheer depth of resentment I meant to convey. Duck them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You and others turned the discussion to the benefits of the current electoral system. Furunculus argued that the system gives a mandate for radical reform. So I asked him how long it would take for the most radical recent reform to be assessed. Is this not a natural progression of your thread of discussion? Or does radical reform exist as some kind of eternal revolution a la Mao Zedong that does not need to be assessed, merely embarked on without thought of consequences?

Those are escellent question, but they really belong in their own thread if you want to discuss them at length, for they are rather more serious that the topic at hand is meant to be.

I should be quite happy to contribute to such a thread, I might add.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didnt think beskar still had admin powers.

The edited version robs it of the sheer depth of resentment I meant to convey. Duck them.

I do understand the attraction of using swear-words, especially out loud, but the true joy of the English language is crafting insults that are both unmistakable in their intent whilst being simultaneously oh so difficult to pin down and object to.

It is the way that we cultivate our reputation as a race online so that the rest of the world can differentiate us from Americans.

Silence and stillness dear boy, on the surface.

[Beskar]

I do understand the attraction of using swear-words, especially out loud, but the true joy of the English language is crafting insults that are both unmistakable in their intent whilst being simultaneous oh so difficult to pin down and object to.

Or calling your opponent an egregious anorak scrounger. That kind of works too. An alphabet soup of eccentric words.

[Greyblades]

I have decided to find alternatives for swear words, thus I plan to heavily referr to this sheet from now on:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-aozP_XcAE-eKF.jpg

[Furunculus]

So we got Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor as the leadership duo.

I confess, I was a Nandy man - as a consequence of her having an understanding of non-metropolitan labour.

That said, on an entirely different cultural battleground that the party also needs to win for the same non-metropolitan voterbase - he made the excellent choice of refusing to sign those silly trans pledges. identity politics is where the left-wing jumps the shark, and he at least seems to realise this.

We may soon have a competant Labour party to fill the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Hurray!

[Beskar]

Got to be honest, Labour leadership hasn't been in the headlines at all. I got no idea who is who at the moment, other than vagueness.

[Furunculus]

Truly?

You're politically interested and solidly left, i find it hard to grasp if you haven't got a position on the leadership.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Truly?

You're politically interested and solidly left, i find it hard to grasp if you haven't got a position on the leadership.

Which implies that Labour is in day-to-day mode with no strong leader figure having yet emerged from quiet internal discussions.

[Furunculus]

i might agree with that, if only because - covid19 withstanding - it is hard to imagine Bozza not winning in 2025.

[Greyblades]

He was director of public prosecutions during the paul chambers twitter joke case.

So yeah, we're not seeing labour departing from the thought police drive this time.

[Pannonian]

He was director of public prosecutions during the paul chambers twitter joke case.

So yeah, we're not seeing labour departing from the thought police drive this time.

Wow, that's one hell of a far removed line of attack.

[Greyblades]

What does that even mean, far removed from what?

He was responsable for the R in the R v Paul Chambers, giving the go ahead for the prosecution. (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/29/paul-chambers-twitter-joke-airport)

He engaged in the petty suppression of speech that stains our judiciary, hence why I dont see his tenure changing labour's ever insufferable push orwell-wise.

[Pannonian]

What does that even mean, far removed from what?

He was responsable for the R in the R v Paul Chambers, giving the go ahead for the prosecution. (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/29/paul-chambers-twitter-joke-airport)

He engaged in the petty suppression of speech that stains our judiciary, hence why I dont see his tenure changing labour's ever insufferable push orwell-wise.

Do you always hold those responsible for what happens under them?

[Greyblades]

Do you always hold those responsible for what happens under them?

When they overrule thier subordinates decisions as stated in the third paragraph: yes.