Starmer is now as short as 1/4 to win, well ahead of his nearest rival Rebecca Wrong-Bailey.
Printable View
Starmer is now as short as 1/4 to win, well ahead of his nearest rival Rebecca Wrong-Bailey.
I agree, breath of fresh air ,however way too much of a step forward for Labour .
This is the closest the all inclusiveness party has been to electing a women , an MP outside of the London elite, and not backed by he Momentum fruit loops.
My first choice was Jess Phillips she'd have destroyed the blonde one.
I'm not enthused by any of the candidates still standing. I have been to Long-Bailey and Starmer campaign rallies in Sheffield in the past week - both with 300-400 members present. Missed the Lisa Nandy one as was on holiday.
They are all falling over themselves to get the endorsement of the Israeli Embassy.
Long-Bailey has alienated a lot of members on the left in the last few weeks and doesn't seem quite as assured as I expected. Starmer strangely is coming over as a more genuine supporter of the good things from the Corbyn revolution and the last two manifestos and is pitching quite effectively as the unity candidate. Nandy has some good things to say about rebuilding trust in northern towns and amongst leave voters, but she has really taken up the mantle of the PLP right wing now that Jess Philips has taken her ego off on some other Jess Philips project.
Clive Lewis was the one I most favoured when the hands first went up - but he didn't get out of the starting stall.
Two weeks ago I would have been a certain Long-Bailey voter, but not so sure now. Starmer may be a better bet than I first thought.
Starmer doesn't seem to be falling for the obvious traps, 'rate Corbyn out of 10', 'are you a Zionist?'. I think labour can regain its focus under him and I see a real possibility of a united party.
https://youtu.be/oUon9j1zJ_E
Not sure Nandy has thought this one through.
Why does Labour feel vulnerable when talking about Israeli , not all its people evil,the surrounding countries never seem to get mentioned in the same way as they speak of Israel ,there is a whiff of hatred about in my humble view .
Clive Lewis in my view , is way off the modern electorate appeal radar ,its like no one has witnessed he last four elections ,so frustrating .
Labour either wants power or it doesn't I feel it just want to be a party of protest
telling comment under the video clip
"That child sex offender is NOT a woman. He ought not to have the rights afforded to women to protect them in law.
Thank you for sharing this, it really shows women like me, historically Labour members and supporters where the party is going with regards to self ID."
If he means what he says in the hustings (and he seems to be doubling down on the 'do not jettison Corbyn' comments) then I think you may be right. I am bothered by all of the candidates on their response to the anti-semitism (part genuine, part manufactured) crisis. But Starmer has been impressive on the role of the membership, support for the green new deal and anti-austerity platform in the last two manifestos (and the failures of the market - which distances him from many Blairites), an ethical foreign policy with a focus on human rights (which in the context he said it seems to be partly about Israel/Palestine as well as arms trading, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China) and the overriding need to make Labour electable without ditching principles, values and difficult (if individually popular) policies. He isn't a great orator or personality - but he does exude competence and integrity.
As a Labour member I had always expected to vote Starmer. However I have been very impressed by Lisa Nandy and it’s likely she will be getting my vote,
You may be right on that.
Interesting in the TV debate tonight Nandy was the one who said ditch the monarchy, whilst the other two said no (Starmer said scale down). I like some things from her - but not others. She is firming up her position as the anti-Corbyn candidate, and despite his obvious weaknesses as a Parliamentary leader, I do not like what that represents in the PLP. Maybe that makes her more attractive to former Labour voters (together with her Brexit stance)... I don't know. Long-Bailey may have Momentum and Unite backing but she is doing a good job of alienating a lot of her 'natural' support - me included.
If Starmer wins I wonder how long it will take him to turn back to a centralsit Blair type government, you know the one that used to win them elections?
[QUOTE=jon1959;5049359]I still remember the 2010 Labour victory fondly.[/QUOTj
I bet , being in opposition obviously appeals to its new Labour followers
[QUOTE=life on mars;5049466]Er.... not the point.
'Centrist Blair type government' did not always win elections. They did some good things: mild redistribution in Brown budgets, Sure Start, some investment in public assets - though too often via PFI - a housing policy (thank you John Healey) and other progressive changes. They also engineered illegal wars, pandered to the Murdoch press, and continued major elements of Thatcherism without any shame. The shine went off and the centrist 'Blair type' politics of Blair and Brown paved the way for the return of Conservatism (with and without Liberal poodles). If your recipe for Labour electoral success is a return to that I think you are dead wrong.
[QUOTE=jon1959;5049478]You know that is not the point , every party learns by its mistakes and trys to establish a better version of itself, no one is suggesting a return to total Blair politics, what is very clear though , today's Labour party is not fit for purpose or electable ,not my single view, its the majority of the country's view , and has been sadly for the last 4 elections .
Didn't see it (debate last night) , but heard on radio coming home tonight, Lisa Nandy was the only one with the courage to suggest, it's possibly time to end the monarchy, KS & RLB just fudged their answers.
She's brave as the country still has affections for the Royals and that can play out in an election as an anti Britishness theme, I suppose thats why the others are on the JC fence edging thier bets.
Sir Kier was made a (Queens ) council which may sit difficult with him ( is the Sir thingy anything to do with the Royalist system ? ) .
Our Becks is very quiet on the matter, but she did give 10 out of 10 to Jezzie , who is an anti Royal .
Why do Labour dislike the Royals so ??
I have just finished watching the Crown on Netflix, I have no idea how true they have tried to make this series, but if it is a story of near truth, the Queen and Harold Wilson were quite friendly after a difficult start, I cannot remember what it was but the queen offered to do something for HW on learning of his illness that she only did for her hero Churchill. it was something like address the cabinet or have his cabinet to the palace. it is a great series but I'd still bin the RF.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rst-round-poll
Latest poll of Labour members and supporters eligible to vote '....showed Starmer receiving 53% of the vote, ahead of Rebecca Long-Bailey on 31% and Lisa Nandy on 16%' which would have him winning on the first ballot.
The poll covering the deputy leader contest had Angela Rayner 'with 47% of the vote, suggesting she would win in the second round. It showed Burgon in second place on 19%, Allin-Khan on 13%, Butler on 12% and Murray on 9%'. If correct she would win on the second ballot with 52% once Murray's votes had been redistributed.
Voted today for Nandy/Rayner. Fully expect it to be a Starmer/Rayner ticket. If it is I will back them all the way. We need to get these corrupt liars out of office.
You boys badly need to free your minds of the Labour v Conservative nonsense. It only serves to keep you in shackles.
Both bum you minus any lubricant. For crying out loud, it matters not whether it's someone wearing a red or blue condom who's doing the shafting.
A relative purchased her home in 1962 for £1,500. In 2017 she calculated she had paid £46,000 in Council Tax (formerly Rates), or in excess of 30 times of what the place cost. Council Tax/Rates is merely another name for rent - payable to the state. It's impossible to own a home outright in the UK. If you or anyone else believes differently then try not paying that Tax to discover who the real owner is.
That little scam is just one example of how there's only minor cosmetic differences between the red and blues as they'll both screw you over with equal vigour while they bend and squat to accommodate multinationals and City of London bankers. To quote George Carlin: it's a big club and you and I aren't in it.
Some of us choose to see it, most don't.
Never mind Council Tax, all land (on which property is built), whether leasehold or freehold, is 'held of the Crown'. The system that was introduced into the UK in 1066 is still theoretically in place. Elizabeth Windsor may not have called up her feudal levies for a few years but it is well to keep your broadsword or billhook sharp just in case. Either that or plan a new Peasants Revolt.
Or maybe elect a government that is prepared to demolish the system of wealth and power that has survived through the centuries and work with others to achieve similar change internationally. In this country that must start with a fight for the leadership, the soul and the programme of the Labour Party - or else create something else that has the capacity to take and use governmental power (and intergovernmental power) for the common good.
Something a bit more positive than conspiracy fatalism and stockpiling the beer?
I've stated here many times the reds and blues are different wings on the same bird who carry forth an identical agenda.
On at least six different occasions I invited anyone who cared to disagree to have a bash. I've often cited Labour 1997-2010 as evidence when they singularly failed to undo any reforms they objected to that their blue side introduced between 1979 to 1997. No-one gave so much as one example, because none existed. The best someone could manage was that Labour during that 13-year span were not the real Labour Party.
There are thousands of examples of a right wing social democratic party (like Labour under Blair/Brown) doing things that were different and better than a Tory government would have done. They may not have rolled back privatisation or challenged the Murdoch press, but they made working class families better off through Brown's (under the radar) mildly redistributive budgets, introduced Sure Start and other state help, wrote a housing policy for the first time in more than a generation that wasn't just about mortgage rates and Right To Buy (Quality And Choice For All - 2000 - a particular interest of mine as I worked in public housing) and started some serious investment in homes and infrastructure. It was wrong that the massive improvements to schools and hospitals were funded by PFI and not mainstream tax funding - but at least conditions were transformed under their watch. A government that was not so much a successor to Thatcher (and not inclined to start illegal wars) could do more.
It always matters who is in government.
That's about £800 per year every year since she bought the house for half that amount. That was probably the amount of mortgage she took out to buy it outright over 25 years and it is probably only worth in excess of £250k in today's prices.
Still you have to complain about something I suppose. Funny I always took you as an optimistic, glass half-full, look to the future kind of guy. Are you sure you are related?
I do see your point about our serfdom to the state and the hidden hands though. What I think you are after is a means of paying for local services that breaks the link between property and people. It probably needs to be universal and not means set to make it administratively simple to collect. Also be good if it has a short pithy moniker that makes it easy to remember.
Do you really think that is what Organ is saying?
He believes they are the same with different rosettes. Same agenda. It makes no difference which party is in power. The real power in the world is not in governments. The real decisions are made by a small and powerful elite away from public view. The electoral system is just there as a fiction and safety valve to distract and confuse the credulous masses.
Organ is certainly not offering advice on how one political party should respond to another. That is a total irrelevance in his mind.
I do agree with some of what Organ says (unlike Gluey who is just a dupe of the alt right). But even if the main UK parties all buy into a broad political consensus, and if the main levers of political and financial change are controlled by a financial global elite that conspire in the shadows, I still maintain that it makes a difference to Joe and Jane Bloggs whether they have a social democratic or conservative government. Different choices - even if small scale - about health, education, housing, transport and social justice matter to real people facing real problems.
No its not about Organ post , its about the current Corbyn Labour supporters / MP's obsession with wealth,success ,Tories and the past