Thetownend.com

Loathe as I am to start another politics thread (please feel free to bung it in with the other one if you wish) but in case no one has noticed, the Labour Leadership voting has finished and by this time tomorrow the new leader and deputy will have been announced.

The few people on my social medias who feel very strongly about it have been taking their last chances to call Corbyn a 'cunt' a 'twat' and wishing death upon him as well as posting hilarious memes and comments about a Cambridge educated black woman being thick.

So now they are off (I suspect Abbott will be moved away from frontline politics) who's next to be abused, insulted and slandered by the majority of the media and commentators.  And for the few people I know who seem to hate everyone who might be slightly left of the political spectrum what fresh hateful abuse can we expect to be thrown at the new labour leadership.

"Labour leadership" - now there's something that's been an oxymoron for the past few years :)

It won't be a woman.

For what it's worth, I voted first preference for Nandy & Allin-Khan but have every expectation of Starmer & Rayner winning, which would be perfectly fine. I don't think Starmer is especially inspiring and he's probably trying a bit too hard not to upset anyone at the moment, but I think he'll do an excellent job of the technical elements of being an opposition politician at least. The only person on the whole slate I'd be appalled by winning is Burgon.

I voted for Starmer in the end. I based that on the assumption from my part that he'll get the easiest ride from the press. Being a Lord and also a Man. The two female candidates would be toast.

A knight, rather than a Lord. But I suspect you're right on him getting an easier ride from the press, saddening though that might be.

Ah of course. A knight. My bad :girlgiggle:

I also went Starmer.  My instincts were that I would like a female leader, but Long Bailey I felt was to aligned to Corbyn and would be crucified and Nandy didn't convince me.  Deputy was more difficult but I ended up going for Rosenna Allin Khan.  It will be interesting to see if they can actually get a leader and a deputy to work together not to have deputy instigating coups.

Im sure Starmer is a brilliant analytical mind who will be able to shred the arguments of the other side.  My worry is that he looks constantly surprised.  There's none of the easy charm of our last success as a leader or self entitled arrogance of the other side.  But we'll see.

What is interesting to see is what the actual membership of the party decides.  The media have practically given it to Starmer already.  But thats built on the whispers they hear in Whitehall not the 500k grass root members.

Didn't know she was standing, been impressed with the bits I've seen of her so far

She's gone back to working in hospital now.  She did a nice 'thankyou, whoever wins lets move ahead because this crisis has shown how much we're needed' mail to members the other day.

I think it would be Starmer for me - for similar reasons as above. He falls back more towards the center and will be quite capable of dealing with the press.

The only thing the gutter press could "go at him" with is a slight speech impediment but then I'd suggest the press direct their ears towards bumbling, bimbling, buffooning Boris. So likely at some point the Sun/Mail etc will run some childish headline like "Keir Stammer", they may even already have done this at some point. For him though it'll be the equivalent of calling a ginger haired person "ginger!", really heard it all before.

Definitely interested in who and how the deputy will link up. Khan and Starmer could work quite well. It'll be a decent opposition one hopes and that in itself is a start. Haven't really got to do a lot. Like in chess, just wait for your opponent to make the first mistake - with Boris, those are plentiful.

I voted Long-Baily but Starmer will win. The complete absence of a decent candidate is a legacy of the Blair years, a party full of management consultants.

Starmer is the only one remotely electable. Nandy was a close second for me.

We need an effective opposition that the public can believe in and which will call the government to account . Corbyn never had a chance of achieving that, the country for better or worse did not want to go that far to the left.

I can see it now. A stage, a lectern, a snappily dressed drone in a suit with a red tie of course. A suitable catchy labouresque banner. The three finalists. The drone in a suit drones on thanking everyone yada ,yada. In third place a tie, Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy... so the winner is....Jeremy Corbyn. Rapturous applause. Applause dies down. With John McDonald as his deputy.... stunned silence as Jezza and Johno hug each other while giving a thumbs up to McClusky and co from the unions.

Another cool story bro

Cunt.

(TEF traditional welcome, just in case you were wondering.)

Which bits have you seen?

Starmer is the man. looks like a first round win.

phew. imagine RLB as leader. Jesus

shame about Rayner as deputy mind

Seems like he is the right choice to take the party forwards IMO.

A bunch of very sensible policies listed on the BBC news feed.  I agree with all of them.  But in the spirit of debate, I'd be interested to know what people disagree with and, more importantly, why.

Edit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-52164158

I think so too.  A left winger with appeal across the party.  And I think he'll be able to hold Johnson to account in a way that Corbyn could not.


Have to admit that I don't know much about her.  What are your concerns?

to be fair I've judged the Rayner book but the cover.

I've seen a couple of interviews where she came across extremely confrontational and rambling rather than calm and coherent. But yes, that's judging far too quickly.

Excellent news, I can start voting Labour again next time.

Pinched from somewhere else....

It's... interesting that out of this morning's Financial Times editorial and the new Labour leader's victory speech, the Financial Times editorial is by some distance the more radical.

It'll be like Hoddle and Gorman.  Hoddle all calm and collected,  Gorman with the passion.

Rayner comes across as a nasty piece of work. Confrontational for the sake of it.
Starmer. A red version of John Major?

I thought Nandy and/or Phillips would have been a better bet. But I know nothing about politics.

What’s concerning is that 25% of them seemed to still think that RLB, Corbyn version 2, was the right direction to keep going. Anyway Corbyn is the past thankfully.

Starmer comes across as a leader, something i can’t say about the previous 2. That’s half the battle in getting elected to the highest office.

He's a leader, but he also has a firm handle on detail.  Johnson is going to have to change tack, because his Bunter-esque flibber flabber isn't going to work any more when the person across the dispatch box is forensically dismantling your ideas.

Labour will be out of office for at least 2 terms anyway.

Arch remainer Starmer will go down bout as well as a cup of cold sick in the red wall seats that voted leave

Don't think that makes much difference any more. It wasn't Corbyn's performances at PMQs that caused Labour to tank in December

And some still bang on about Brexit ::) :crash:


I wouldn't be so sure either. We've the aftermath of this disaster we're gonna get and the inquest into the failings of the current government. Plenty of people will lose loved ones and they won't forget.

And so under labour no one would have died then?

I think you will find the government have high approval ratings on all this stuff.

The inquest will be around how the virus developed in the first place. No health systems are really geared up for this whether state or private.

Ha ha. What a ridiculous strawman.

1. Of course some would have died. The NHS would have been better funded in preparation though.

2. That will change as more and more die from the virus. And people with other conditions that will now due to not being able to get diagnosis/treatment.

3. Agree with the first sentence to a point but there will be questions asked here too. We are worse prepared than many other countries and have been for years. People will demand answers.

Delusional.

As if labour know how to generate cash to fund public services that’s the biggest joke I’ve heard this year. Maybe they could’ve started without loading hospitals with massive PFI debts for a start.

The post mortem will read - we weren't ready.  You cannot operate in an emergency after a decade of governments idealogical austerity has left us with too few nurses, too few doctors, too few police, too few members of armed forces.  It will read, a Prime minister ran away to hide in a fridge.

Austerity can work in times of relative calm but in times of crisis it fails and when this is over the fingers will know where to point.

Meh, whatever. You're entitled to your opinion.

The Tories have been in power for a decade!
 They have proven in the last few weeks that money was/is available if necessary.

You would think our health care system is the only one struggling here.

The Italian one, rated 2nd best in the world, is falling apart at the seams under the pressure with similar PPE issues as well. Similar situations in Spain and France.

Doesn’t excuse things over here at all but to imply ours is only system struggling badly is incorrect

Who's doing that??

Well done labour voters for nominating Blair mk 2. Lets hope he's not, and better than the current selection of half wits across all parties.

I think you may be pissing in the wind here. Just ask Gosportrob.

thanks, I'm quite happy with the result, but Grangela only got in on round 3

Do you really see no possible ground between Blair and pure Corbynism or are you on a wind up?

Think that's a bit harsh, he's quite a bit to the left of Blair, although not quite so much as the more recent incumbent. He also has the advantage of not being a war criminal which is always a plus, I feel

And, of course, he has a very ‘Labour-ish’ Christian name. It’s about time we had leaders called Colin or Barry.

Name makes me think of flat pack furniture.  :)

Tbf, he had to get into a position of leadership before he could give himself the opportunity to become a war criminal

...or Harry Perkins.  :)

Millionaire, grammar school educated lawyer, what a waste, make a good Tory. Ironic really when you consider labour hate millionaires and grammar schools. Oh of course I forgot. It is not the labour millionaire privileged grammar/privately educate MPS who are the cunts, it’s the Tory millionaire priviledged grammar/privately educated cunts that are the cunts. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Your stockpiled meat gone mouldy?

Champagne socialism?

How dare you. How very dare you suggest such a thing.

Why are people that can be considered privileged not allowed to hold socialist values?

Because some people only see things in binary terms.
Also, on the one hand Starmer is called a Red Tory and then in the next post he’s a socialist.

Perhaps you could explain what the socialist values are?

A government paying a significant proportion of the country’s wages during a national crisis?
A government delivering food parcels for free to 1.5 million vulnerable people?

I’ll tell you what socialism isnt - jacking up the prices of hand sanitiser to £10 a unit at a time of national shortage. That would be pure capitalism.

In the same way that privileged people not be allowed to have conservative values?

These are his: https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

Dodging the original question

Standard

What question was that?

Do you know what, I asked this question as there seemed to be little else to be happening in the world but the virus at the moment and this was a genuine interesting event that would be happening.  I was trepidatious about asking a political question as I suspected it would become tedious fucking binary bollocks again.

I was right.

Goodnight.

We can talk about the shadow cabinet if you like... I can't honestly say I've heard of two of the top five named and I'm a party member, so I guess that counts as a fresh start. Glad to see Nandy get a decent job though.

I have no time for either Labour or Conservatives

Ideally I like 5 years of each to limit the damage they can inflict upon us.

And for both to be effectively emasculated requires a strong opposition.

Starmer and Phillips should make great opposition within the severe confines of a lack of seats.

Starmer's dull reliability and careful sincerity giving a gravitas Johnson lacks while Phillip's working class humour and directness looks capable of cutting down Boris' slightly faux blokeish levity.

Two cheers, at least for the prospect of some opposition, even if the Tories'majority on a minority of the popular vote gives them carte blanche.

Rayner won, Jess Phillips stood for leader but withdrew. Wrong bolshy working class woman, you want the Mancunian one not the Brummy one. Otherwise pretty accurate though.

Thanks for the correction, Nemo.

I hope Rayner and St armer will be almost as good.

For all Johnson's affable rogueishness, he has overseen a ruthless purge of the decent strands of his party and nearly of Parliament itself. 

We should not have to look primarily to our Courts to effectively check a power hungry Government from exceeding its powers.  It should be the role for a decent opposition to engage popular opinion to bear on Government conduct.

tbf, it's largely been seriously discussed apart from the one usual troll

He's the most appealing of all the candidates to the majority, and I think labour wanted that after years of partisan politics. The complete mishandling of the anti-semitism situation didn't help, and if anything gives him an easy target to tilt at in his first few weeks to build up his credibility.

Looking at his work and political record (there's a good brief summation on the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51049756), and catching up on a few discussions/speeches he's made, he seems a sensible and level-headed examiner of facts who puts forward policies/opinions based on the desires/problems of his constituents and what will fix the problem, without making grand promises or ignoring information because it suits him.

Someone using actual facts to formulate ideas about what we should be doing, and building a platform based on reasoning and accuracy?! How rare in the modern age!

If people get hung up on education when it comes to labour leaders let's not forget 'man of the people' Harold Wilson went to a grammar school and Oxford university. Being called a champagne socialist because you were lucky enough (through whatever reason- your parents working hard to improve your lot in life, being able to afford it through a grant etc., you personally working hard to afford it, you coming from a rich family but later realising your politics don't match that upbringing, etc. etc...) to get a decent education does perhaps take the piss somewhat. Do all Labour Politicians have to be miners with a pipe and flat cap to not be deemed as such?

What sway the unions and shadier parts of the labour party have over him will at the end of the day be the arbiter of his leadership. Corbyn always seemed to me to be an enabler of the shadier sects of the Labour party, hence how the party got into the situation it found itself in regarding the anti-semitism accusations.