advertisement


Next Labour Leader II

Status
Not open for further replies.
h.g. said:
Pretty much everything that is going to reverse the social and economic decline for the 99% will come at a price for the current 1%. The previous labour party was happy to give all the benefits of growth to the 1% and since the crash the 1% have been receiving more than all the benefits of growth and are now starting to kill the host which is in no way socially or economically sustainable. The current transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% has to at least stop and preferably be reversed.

Should labour members vote for a person expressing no direct interest in fixing or directly talking about what is almost certainly the largest current problem for the future of our country? Is it because she is smart in not to openly declaring war on the 1% while out of power but will should she get into power or, like last time, would it be largely business as usual for the 1%? We seem to live in tricky times where what politicians say they will do and what they intend but keep quiet about is expected to be interpreted.
Click to expand...
While I agree with much of that I don’t understand how the parasite v host problem of the 1% vs the 99% will be addressed by the moderates you put so much faith in when even you’re own analysis tells the story of Labour moderate centrists in government taking all the benefits of growth from the host and giving it to the parasite.
 
droodzilla said:
False. McDonnell endorsed RLB (because of their joint work on Green New Deal and new models of shared ownership). Corbyn hasn't endorsed any of the candidates.
Click to expand...

OK I will concede that, technically, it is McDonnell that has endorsed her, but McDonnell is a close ally of Corbyn and as RLB claimed herself many times, she wrote a lot of the manifesto that Corbyn was only too happy to promote during the general election.
 
JonR said:
OK I will concede that, technically, it is McDonnell that has endorsed her, but McDonnell is a close ally of Corbyn and as RLB claimed herself many times, she wrote a lot of the manifesto that Corbyn was only too happy to promote during the general election.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Interestingly, one of RLB's main complaints about the campaign is that the New Green Deal (her key policy) wasn't promoted enough by the leadership. She argues, and I tend to agree, that the campaign needed much greater focus, and that the GND would have been an excellent way to achieve that.

In any case, I find it pernicious that so many people are ready to call her "continuity Corbyn" and dismiss her. The most egregious example is Suzanne Moore's tweet implying that RLB had been "groomed by two older white men" - repellent stuff from a supposedly liberal pundit.

Also, notionally, Starmer has committed to about 70-80% of the Corbyn project and no-one's sticking that label on him. And today we're witnessing a Conservative Chancellor recycling large chunks of Labour thinking about the need for bold fiscal stimulus as if it's simply common sense. Maybe Rishi Sunak is a Corbynite sleeper agent?

Of course it's the right thing to do but it should have been done 5-10 years ago when it might have spared us all the agony and the idiocy of Brexit.
 
93 pages and still no leader?

At least they are putting all the recent. challenges behind them, which is nice.
 
Isn't the Labour leadership campaign almost the same length in duration as the recent Conservative one? Didn't see our resident blues bleating about that.
 
droodzilla said:
Fair enough. Interestingly, one of RLB's main complaints about the campaign is that the New Green Deal (her key policy) wasn't promoted enough by the leadership. She argues, and I tend to agree, that the campaign needed much greater focus, and that the GND would have been an excellent way to achieve that.

In any case, I find it pernicious that so many people are ready to call her "continuity Corbyn" and dismiss her. The most egregious example is Suzanne Moore's tweet implying that RLB had been "groomed by two older white men" - repellent stuff from a supposedly liberal pundit.

Also, notionally, Starmer has committed to about 70-80% of the Corbyn project and no-one's sticking that label on him. And today we're witnessing a Conservative Chancellor recycling large chunks of Labour thinking about the need for bold fiscal stimulus as if it's simply common sense. Maybe Rishi Sunak is a Corbynite sleeper agent?

Of course it's the right thing to do but it should have been done 5-10 years ago when it might have spared us all the agony and the idiocy of Brexit.
Click to expand...
I doubt the GND would have made any difference to the outcome. It is an odd situation whereby one candidate is accused of being 'continuity' while another is seen as a centrist while adopting Corbyn policies, I think both sides have their minds made up; classic case of confirmation bias.
 
lordsummit said:
Isn't the Labour leadership campaign almost the same length in duration as the recent Conservative one? Didn't see our resident blues bleating about that.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would they (Tories and all the other parties) bleat? About having absolute power in HoC, having no real opposition?

But on your point - May threw in towel With first ballot 13th June, leader announced 23rd July. JC jacked it in 12 December, resultant leader expected to take office 4 April.

Tory leader 37 days
LP leader 108 days (assuming they hit 4 April timelines.

If a week is a long time in politics, this is a tad more than 'almost as long', I reckon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top