advertisement


Next Labour Leader II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seanm said:
There seems to be a relentless focus on leadership and simply being electable. It offers infinite scope for criticising any action Labour might take since any action at all will have some negative consequences with regard to being electable and no alternative ever has to be offered. It's fascinating. And then it's the left who lack pragmatism and sign up to leadership cults. Not singling Woody out or anything it's a pretty widespread thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, I definitely agree. For me policy is always far more important than personality and just ‘being electable’ doesn’t really say very much. Anyone is electable up until the point that they’re elected or not. As you say, no one appears prepared to say what it means or to identify a candidate who has it. Instead there seems to be a hope for a messianic figure to appear and lead us to the promised land.
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, I definitely agree. For me policy is always far more important than personality and just ‘being electable’ doesn’t really say very much. Anyone is electable up until the point that they’re elected or not.
Click to expand...
I think you know it's not as simple as that.
To win the next election Labour need to reclaim their northern seats and make inroads into Tory seats. An electable leader needs to appeal on a broad front.
I can't see RLB being that leader. I can see Starmer. And it's not just to do with policy. Background and presentation matter to the electorate.
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, I definitely agree. For me policy is always far more important than personality and just ‘being electable’ doesn’t really say very much. Anyone is electable up until the point that they’re elected or not. As you say, no one appears prepared to say what it means or to identify a candidate who has it. Instead there seems to be o hope for a messianic figure to appear and lead us to the promised land.
Click to expand...
It is easier to say who isn't electable than who is. Ultimately we have the candidates in front of us & can only choose from that group.

Your point on policy is valid but I would suggest that the average voter spends little time pouring over the manifesto.

Politics is pretty tribal & it takes a certain type of leader to break these ties. The last two to achieve this was Thatcher & Blair.

Personally I think I will always vote Labour, Corbyn was the first leader in my time who made me think of going elsewhere despite some good policies.

Ultimately, we are all different.
 
matthewr said:
I think the point is more that showing leadership and being electable are table stakes for being the leader of a political party.
Click to expand...

And that is something labour have failed at in their last three choices. ( ....I include Brown even though they didn't quite choose him )
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, I definitely agree. For me policy is always far more important than personality.
Click to expand...

Good for you !.. and that simple statement lost you the election.

To the voting public the reverse is true. They go for personality and unless you grasp that fact you will keep losing elections until the end of time.*

* You may think that that sucks but none the less that is what you have to work with.

Ideology = wilderness
 
matthewr said:
I think the point is more that showing leadership and being electable are table stakes for being the leader of a political party.
Click to expand...
How might a candidate show leadership? How might members recognise electability?

It just seems weird to me that Labour have managed to recognise electability exactly once in 40 years, and that in someone who was careful to leave Thatcherism intact, while the Tory party strike gold again and again. Given this history doesn’t it make sense to stop looking for such a rare and ineffable quality, and get someone in who simply has a plan and seems willing to go through with it?
 
Joe said:
Good for you !.. and that simple statement lost you the election.

To the voting public the reverse is true. They go for personality and unless you grasp that fact you will keep losing elections until the end of time.*

* You may think that that sucks but none the less that is what you have to work with.

Ideology = wilderness
Click to expand...
Then vote for whoever is ahead in the polls. Which in the last election would be Boris Johnson. It would appear you have what you wished for. Good for you
 
NeilR said:
RLB is religious and says she prays to god each day. For me, thats a no go. Religion and politics should never mix.
Click to expand...
It’s a smear, designed to activate anti-Irish sentiment as well as this kind of knee-jerk secularism.
 
Seanm said:
How might a candidate show leadership?
Click to expand...
  • Honesty and Integrity. ...
  • Inspire Others. ...
  • Commitment and Passion. ...
  • Good Communicator. ...
  • Decision-Making Capabilities. ...
  • Accountability. ...
  • Delegation and Empowerment. ...
  • Creativity and Innovation.
(Copied and pasted from t'internet.)
 
Weekender said:
  • Honesty and Integrity. ...
  • Inspire Others. ...
  • Commitment and Passion. ...
  • Good Communicator. ...
  • Decision-Making Capabilities. ...
  • Accountability. ...
  • Delegation and Empowerment. ...
  • Creativity and Innovation.
(Copied and pasted from t'internet.)
Click to expand...
Rebecca Long Bailey then?
 
NeilR said:
RLB is religious and says she prays to god each day. For me, thats a no go. Religion and politics should never mix.
Click to expand...
What kind of "religious" ?

I'm not religious or a member of the Labour Party (or any party), but didn't early Labour have at least some of its roots in religios Nonconformism/Methodism? I thought it was part of Labour's history. I can think of worse things to criticise her for.

Is she a Catholic? Not meant to be offensive in any way, just a simple question.
 
MikeMA said:
What kind of "religious" ?

I'm not religious or a member of the Labour Party (or any party), but didn't early Labour have at least some of its roots in religios Nonconformism/Methodism? I thought it was part of Labour's history. I can think of worse things to criticise her for.

Is she a Catholic? Not meant to be offensive in any way, just a simple question.
Click to expand...
Yes, a Catholic of Irish heritage, and this is very much the point.
SteveS1 said:
Rubbish. The similarity is allowing personal faith into politics and it becoming a distraction. Blair made a similar error. Clap clap.
Click to expand...
"...it becoming a distraction"...like it's something that just happens.

This began life as a calculated bit of misrepresentation on centrist fake news site Red Roar, and has been amplified by Starmer's supporters through the (probably unwitting) use of an age-old anti-Irish trope (Paul Mason suggesting she owes allegiance to the Vatican, not Britain). You're being played and loving it because this bit of racist stupidity maps neatly onto a bit of centrist smuggery about religion and politics. Just have a think about it for 2 seconds.
 
Seanm said:
How might a candidate show leadership? How might members recognise electability?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the very stuff of politics? I don't want to suggest that we should descend to the most shallow style of modern politics but, like I say, there is a basic table stakes there. I think one needs to get a sense of a candidate's vision and beliefs from hearing them speak and if they cannot get this across then they are going to struggle. If nothing else this is the sort of thing that counteracts the negative press they will have to deal with.

Although oddly I find myself having these doubts about Starmer. He has a background that means I am sure he would be very competent and he looks the part but whenever I hear him speak he underwhelms. Lisa Nandy, about who I knew very little, is the one who has impressed me the most so far.

FWIW my current ranking:

Nandy
Starmer
Thornberry
Long[-]Bailey
Phillips
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top