Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bald Rick, 13 Dec 2019.
The more I see of Starmer the more I don’t think he would be the one to revive Labour’s fortunes. Seeing him speak I pick up the same coldness which did it for Theresa May. I don’t see Starmer reconnecting with the places Labour have lost.
I think the only one who would land any sort of punch would be Nandy simply because she seems to have a full understanding of what needs to be done to regain ground, but she seems to be the one least likely to be picked by the Corbyn cult.
One way or another it seems like it might be worth putting a bet on Long-Bailey getting it.
And the chances of Labour under a Long-Bailey leadership of forming a government get worse.
Amazing that they’ve actually managed to put forward someone likely to perform worse than Corbyn. Still, could have been worse, at least Abbott isn’t running.
Anyone (on the Labour side at least - doesn’t seem to be such an issue for the Conservatives) with a London background is likely to be toxic for the foreseeable future. This rules out Thornberry and Starmer, and most definitely Sadiq Khan in the future if he’s got his sights set for next time round.
The people who I thought would make the best leaders of Labour are not standing, possibly because they realised they have little chance of getting elected whilst Militant Mark 2 (a.k.a. Momentum) dominates the party. A vote for Ms. Long-Bailey is effctively a vote for an extra 5-10 years for Boris as PM.
Of those standing, Keir Starmer seems the one most likely to gain Labour voters - but I suspect that the militant crowd probably won't trust him. Lisa Nandy might be the next best option - but again, will the militants trust her ?
How many election defeats will it take before the militants accept that the public does not want their outdated ideas ?
I may be wrong, but I just don't think Starmer will make that connection. Too aloof with a London sense of "I know best", which is partly what did it for Labour this time.
Infinite. In their view they are right and the electorate are wrong, and no progress will be made until this mindset changes. Listening to some of the rubbish emanating from the naïve young Corbyn worshippers there is a *long* way to go before they even turn the corner towards looking the right way.
I'm sure some of them think some kind of saviour is going to jump out of the sky and magically re-write ("remedy") the ("mistake") that is the election result.
Having said all this, the outcome of the next election will likely be determined based on Boris's performance over the next four years. It's his election to lose, and one guaranteed way for that to happen will be if the Conservatives start infighting again. Flushing out the likes of Soubry and Grieve (funny how those names have barely been heard for a while now!) isn't enough to ensure that isn't going to happen, IMO.
With respect, I find the argument about 'naïve young Corbyn worshippers' a little patronising (I'm not one, I am way too far ahead of passing for 'young').
Although the term 'Marxism' is used as a perogative by the ignorant, Marx recognised that capitalism was very good for developing economies ; but disagreed that it was good for developed economies. In fact if you look around, you may argue that many of the woes of Western economies are due to the endless search for the capitalist obsession with economic growth (dotcom boom and bust, banking crisis destroying capital, endless consumption causing climate catastrophe).
Since 'young naïve people' don't see the benefits of capitalism in modern society or at least question them, it is perhaps incumbent on you to point out what those are rather than disparagingly dismissing people's valid concerns.
I am no lover of aspects of the capitalist system, but unlike the militants, I recognise that such policies do not win UK elections. For one thing, many idealistic groups (left or right) that have managed to win elections (or otherwise gain power) have morphed into murderous, self-perpetuating regimes. Future elections are blocked or fiddled to ensure the group retains power. Anyone who dares to criticise finds themselves in prison, exiled, "disappeared" or murdered. And enough UK people have seen that happen overseas to ensure that it can never be allowed to happen here. Plus, a lot of people actually believe what they read in the Torygraph/Wail/Scum is true, and that stuff is mostly written by, or for, those with vested interests in keeping the existing system.
It isn’t really about capitalism, but about producing a leader, government-in-waiting and manifesto which is capable of winning an election. Corbyn simply didn’t do that, and on top of that many people rightly felt unease in respect of his bizarre fixation with issues or institutions like Palestine or the IRA.
Personally I think things run slightly deeper than this, in that it’s noticeable how certain political leaders - Corbyn being one, Sturgeon another - attempt to garner the young vote. I can’t help but find this slightly sinister in that young people are as a group clearly more likely to be impressionable simply due to possessing less life experience. Ever had that feeling of being used?!
If a young person cannot see what capitalism brings them in the UK, then they aren’t looking very hard.
Go on then ... don't be shy.
Well, you could look at it that way with young people having less 'life experience' or you could look at them being more receptive to different ideas, not having suffered so many years of indoctrination into the superiority of a system which is principally designed to serve a few (and getting fewer) and stifle dissent.
It would be like asking me to describe everything I see in one day. Pointless.
We need a mixed economy, balanced in the right way, not the current 'communism for the rich, capitalism for the poor' that is ever prevalent and will doom this country even more after the Brexit nonsense.
Different ideas which have been tried in the past and generally proved unsuccessful.
Like it or not the current consensus *does* work for more than a few people. That’s not to say it’s perfect, but it seems people would prefer to tinker with what we have rather than go for something radically different. In essence this is what Blair offered, something which was warmly received at the ballot box.
Having said that, those indoctrinated older people seemed to break ranks with the EU referendum. It was the youngsters who wanted the status quo to prevail!
Why pointless? You could start with people living on the streets, foodbanks, the homeless, awful private accomodation etc etc...or do you not see any of this?
I'm sorry. I don't remember having 40 years of positive reporting on the benefits of EU membership ... must have missed that indoctrination programme. Quite the opposite actually ... constant negative (mis)representation of EU membership ('They're banning curvy bananas, dontchaknow') and whingeing along with anecdotal stories of scroungers and wasters coming here to (a) nick our jobs or (b) nick our benefits whichever suited the narrative of the day.
Surely that’s not all you see.
If the benefits of capitalism are so self-evident, why are you having such trouble in citing them ?
Arglwydd Golau rightly pointed out a list of things which he sees which perhaps you see as 'benefits of capitalism'
It might help if you gave the matter some thought before posting.
I for one would rather have a capitalist system which empowers people to make their own decisions and create wealth based on effort, rather than a planned system where the government makes many of the decisions which affect people's lives. I don't see why people should be recompensed for doing little or nothing.
Having said that, there's certainly elements of the capitalist model which need to be checked -- which to a greater or lesser extent UK governments in living memory have done.
Corbyn and Momentum's politics is too based on chips on shoulders, in some cases about quite remote issues like Palestine. Not salient to most British voters. Once a person starts paying tax it tends to focus the mind, when people are looking at their payslip and seeing four-figure levels of deductions (on quite modest incomes) it's no wonder people tend to shift slightly to the right over time. No doubt this basic reality of life is lost on the Momentum types.
You’d not be posting gibber on here if it wasn’t for capitalism..... it’s not perfect, but then no system is.
A capitalist economy has obviously allowed us to develop to the level we’re at now.
However, us and the government should realise that capitalism promotes inequality and that the state should step in to try and remedy that.
Latest YouGov poll had Starmer on 63% and Long-Bailey on 37% once all other candidates are discounted.
Question is would Starmer stand aside as leader in return for a powerful position in any shadow cabinet or agree to step down after a period of time?
Oh Christ, Wrong-Daily was serenaded onto the stage in Manchester last night with Nomentum morons chanting her name to Seven Nation Army (here’s a clue you halfwits; it doesn’t fit the tune unless you drop the ‘Re’).
Seriously though, do these dumbasses think that chanting a name makes their chosen imbecile any more electable? It must take a special kind of stupidity to get an utter tonking at the ballot box and then think “I know, let us try more of the same”...
Do you know what capitalism is ? Your statement makes no sense.
That's a very idealistic view of what capitalism does. There is a vast wage disparity between different jobs, but the same could not be said in terms of effort. Minimum wage jobs do not necessarily require fractions of 1% of the effort of a CEO job (to take an extreme example).
It also allows quite a lazy view that poor people are poor because they haven't put the effort in.
Before posting it from my £1000 smartphone onto a forum which is free for me to use because it is funded by advertising? What’s there to think about? All Arglwydd Golau pointed out was failures of recent governments, not inherent flaws in capitalism.
Disagree. Inequality, competition and conflict are drivers of human development and growth. The government should ensure a minimum, dignified standard of living - and the same rights - for all its citizens but it should not strive to make them equal.
Yes to some extent this is idealistic, but it's also realistic.
The majority of the electorate are happy to enjoy the benefits capitalism brings them. The main variation is individual views as to what extent the government should impose checks and balances on what would otherwise be a completely free market. Even Thatcher's government was nowhere near a completely unchecked capitalist model, and never strove to be.
Corbyn essentially duped young people into subscribing to a highly niche ideology that has never stood a chance of being elected in Britain. Debating society and pressure group politics rather than a credible alternative government.
I totally agree that many poor people aren't in that situation for lack of effort, however there are undoubtedly people who would be more than happy to get something for nothing, and it becomes very hard to differentiate the two groups. Our capitalist setup already has policies like the minimum wage which attempts to restrain the market for what would otherwise be low-wage jobs.
Ummm, it seems I misjudged you. I thought you had the intelligence to understand. Apologies for getting that bit wrong.