Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bald Rick, 13 Dec 2019.
What about Dan Jarvis?
Mayor of Sheffield City Region. The position is a bit of a poisoned chalice currently, so I'm not sure how many credible candidates are going to want it. They could just end up being sitting ducks when it comes to answering to the unions.
Not a chance in hell that Labour's current membership would elect him.
I just don’t buy that. If it was such very low consideration then we wouldn’t have seen UKIP representing such a threat to the major parties.
Were it not for the eastern expansion and freedom of movement combining then it may well have been the case that the simmering malcontent might not have boiled over, but in my view that was the straw which broke the camel’s back.
Whilst you are right, it is currently a stick for the other parties to beat them with. Labour is supposed to be the inclusive party who push for equal opportunities. Yet they are also the only one that has never elected a woman as leader. When the Conservatives, Lib Dems, the Nationalists and increasingly the Greens, can use that perception of a lack of diversity over you, then you need to do something to neutralise it. If Labour had gone into an election in it's past with a female leader, then I think it wouldn't be as big a problem, and the 'best candidate' would be appropriate. However I think Labour need to solve this problem and on this occasion I think being female would be a requirement to be the best candidate.
Equally, whilst I'm all for men standing up and calling out misogyny where ever they see it, calling out Johnson's misogyny will be so much more effective if it comes from a woman.
Having a belief in something doesn't mean you don't get how much other people disagree with you. I'm pretty sure many Remainers are perfectly well aware of how much anti-EU feeling there is. We just disagree. Are we supposed to shut up and not say what we believe just because other people feel strongly the other way?
That would be the ultimate irony - after so many, shall we say, 'strongly left-wing people' joined Labour in 2015 and 2016 in an attempt to shift the party to the left and elect Corbyn - if the same thing happened now in reverse to push Labour back towards where (in my view) it ought to be.
Ipsos MORI's issues index shows that the EU wasn't a particularly big concern until late 2015 at which point it suddenly became of great interest to the public. I should point out of course that this doesn't show the feeling towards it, just how important the topic is perceived to be.
What is also of interest is to see that immigration, which had been an increasingly important issue up until late 2015 noticeably becomes less of an issue.
If they were falling over themselves with good candidates then okay. But right now I think the priority should be finding a credible leader regardless of gender. Looking at the shortlist I cannot see anybody that would appeal to enough of the country.
And this is another reason why it must be a woman for me. There is definetly still a 'misogynistic' demographic in the UK electorate, it is shrinking with every year of new 18 year olds but it is still there. This will continue to make it incredibly difficult for a Female leader to win an outright majority, particularly a female leader of the left. Therefore given as Darlorich says, this is probably going to be a 2 term, 2 leader recovery, Labour need to elect a female leader now, so the diversity question of never having had one, can be put to bed.
Looking at the data from Lord Ashcroft's polls, it shows that men chose Conservatives over Labour by a 19 point margin, 48% vs 29%. Labour also have more female MPs than male, 53% vs 47%, and operate sexist no men shortlists, I'm not convinced that appointing someone because of their sex is the right choice. Labour already have a big problem attracting the male vote, let's not make that more difficult.
I think this is a good point.
I think this is also one of the reasons the Lib Dems didn't do well this time too. Everytime I saw Jo Swinson, she was surrounded entirely by women (dressed like the WI). You're immediately alienating half of the electorate by doing that...
This is not a thread to talk about Brexit or wider political issues in any other context than one directly related to the Labour leadership contest. We seem to have got somewhat back on track but I note that in the last page or so we've been well off track.
I would therefore ask that people stick to the topic as any further such off-topic posts are liable for deletion.
Supposed dream ticket of Rebecca Long-Bailey as leader and Angela Raynor as deputy...
But Farage is the complete antithesis of everything else you called for: a (paid for) education at Dulwich College in the leafiest part of S.E. London and then into the City of London, having grown up in the grittiest part of the London Borough of Bromley, Farnborough/Downe. So why shouldn't Labour appoint a pretend 'man/woman of the people' to try to con people in the same way as Farage and his hero Trump?
Come back tony blair, all is forgiven. Whomever it be i hope they sort the shambles out.
Mmm, yes, there's nothing wrong with lying about WMD's to destabilize a country.
Yes please! That should secure the next couple of GEs for the Conservatives.
You can of course turn that argument around, and point out that Labour is going relatively well at attracting the female vote (albeit still behind the Tories this time), and perhaps having a female leader would enhance that more.
I do understand the concerns about preferring someone because of their gender, and I'd feel happier if that could be avoided. But the other side of that argument is that, for a long time, men have been much more likely than women to want to join political parties and become actively involved, and this brings several risks. Firstly that, it could mean men's concerns get heard more often than women's concerns. And secondly that, if you have a group mostly containing one gender, that could give rise to a culture that favours doing things in a way that only that gender is comfortable with, making it harder for people of the opposite gender to get in. An example would be stories you hear of male-dominated workplaces where it becomes normal for women to be somewhat sexually harassed - and that culture persists because the majority of people in that environment are men and simply don't realise how that culture is felt by women (Luckily that kind of situation is becoming much rarer now as people are becoming more gender-aware). Another example could be the highly adversarial, argumentative, nature of much of our politics - which is something that perhaps men tend to feel more comfortable with than women - and if you get a male-dominated argumentative group, then that therefore naturally preferentially deters women from joining.
For those kinds of reasons I think there is some justification for having procedures to favour women in selection processes etc. to try to even up the balance. And in fact in the Labour Party, there are pretty strict rules about at least 50% of many officer positions in local parties having to go to women. That does sometimes cause problems filling posts when more men than women want to do the jobs, and makes it easier for women to get voted into those positions, but from experience, I would say it is worth it in ensuring that meetings and the party structure sees a good gender balance - because that does mean that a greater variety of voices get heard.
As for all women shortlists... the results speak for themselves. Today 51% of Labour MPs are women, and only 24% of Tory MPs.
Vividly. 4 straight election losses on the bounce. 2010, 2015, 2017 & 2019. And almost certainly 2024.
The focus has to be on skills and ability, not sex (or skin colour, religion, sexuality, or some other irrelevant factor). All woman shortlists hasn't improved the quality of Labour MPs.
How does Labour attract talent, and voters, of both sexes?
Are you really saying that Labour lost those elections because of women-only shortlists?
Rayner and Long-Bailey share a flat in London, that’s likely why they left together.
that particular poster is imo. Clearly an issue with this topic. In the real world................
The big hallucination about all women shortlists is we are supposed to believe women bring something special or unique to the table. Yet, at the same time, Labour’s manifesto essentially claims there’s no difference between men and women, that men can identify as women and fully claim all the privileges and societal protections of womanhood, and that being a woman merely depends on whether you feel like one and not whether you actually are one.
I’m not opposed to a woman being the next leader of the party, but I can’t think of one that would appeal to me. Phillips is the only one with a big enough personality to square up to Johnson, but she’s annoying and lacks some credibility. She’d need a few of her rough edges knocked off to be seriously considered PM material.
Labour must challenge Boris and the Tories. Many of the problems with the country today have arisen because the government has been poor and the opposition to utterly feckless that they’ve been unable to hold them to account. I don’t agree Labour have two terms; I think with the right approach they could challenge Boris in 2024, and even get a majority. He’s a poor administrator and will get many things wrong.
It's a graph of "most important" issue. It's no wonder immigration wasn't the most important issue at a time of the financial crash, illegal wars, etc. It may have still been important but not the MOST important when people are worried about losing their jobs/homes etc. Also, one of the triggers was the Eastern European ascension countries which Blair didn't take the option to restrict immigration from, unlike some other EU countries to rub "the noses of the right in diversity". Then you have greengrocers being prosecuted for selling fruit and veg in imperial measures, Browns "bigoted woman" gaff, etc. It was also a few years after the ascension countries gained freedom of movement that people began to notice the Eastern Europeans in great numbers "taking our jobs" etc, especially in Northern towns where there were loads of self employed tradesmen, plumbers, electricians, decorators, plasterers etc losing their businesses due to cheap competition from gangs of Eastern Europeans.
When you think about it, it was Blair/Brown who presided over the growth of the anti EU movement, invisible at first because of other problems such as the illegal wars and financial crash, but the anti-EU/anti-immigrant feeling was rising in the background - it came to the fore in the 2010-2015 period. Blair/Brown either didn't realise the damage being done, or more likely just didn't care as they were in their own little bubble.
It's just another one of many factors. In my constituency, Labour had a female MP for 13 years, but that was because she was a local woman who was well know as she'd been a local councillor for years.
In the last 4 elections, potential male candidates who were likewise local and local councillors who were locally popular didn't get a look in because of all female short lists, which has resulted in, 4 times, a woman from outside the area being parachuted in, no local knowledge, no local reputation, etc. All 4 have been the same "kind" of people - trotting out the official Labour line, exceptionally patronising, zero local knowledge, etc. Same result every time - losing to a local, well known, popular Tory, despite the area being a run down Northern town with lots of social problems (i.e. what should be an easy Labour win).
They just never learn from their mistakes. The local Labour group (a mix of both sexes, led by a female) are desperate to choose their own candidate. They're not allowed to by Labour central office who basically give them a choice of females from outside the area from which they have to choose one. It's completely crazy. I know the leader of the local labour group, she lives in our village, I see her almost every day walking her dog. She's been tearing her hair out every election at the demands of Labour central office. I had a long talk with her yesterday. She's just about ready to quit, along with several other local Labour party members as she doesn't want to have to go through it all again in 5 years. She openly says that the electorate don't care whether it's a man or a woman, they want the best person for the job and from what she's heard on the doorsteps, that means a local person. From her general attitude and feelings, I think she and several other local councillors will be starting up their own independent "labour" group to fight the next election unless she sees some major change in Central Office and, for her, that means a centralist leader who's not part of the Metropolitan Elite.
Labour need to concentrate on getting the best leader and best candidates - shock horror, if that means men, well they should get the best, not the best woman.
I think you're confusing two different things here. Having an all-women shortlist is not the same as parachuting people in. An all women's shortlist means that only women are eligible to be selected, but the local party still has a full democratic selection process in which anyone (or rather, any woman) can apply, and local party members can vote for any of the applicants. For any winnable seat, you will usually get a lot of people applying.
For parachuting in: The last two general elections were both called 2 years' into the Parliament, at a point where Labour (and I imagine the some of the other parties too) had not yet selected candidates in most seats - since the selection schedule tends to be run on the assumption of a 5-year Parliament. A full democratic selection process takes several months and requires supervision by staff at the central party offices to make sure all the rules are adhered to. When you suddenly get an election called with less than 2 months' notice and you have hundreds of seats that don't yet have candidates, then a full democratic selection process everywhere becomes impossible - and in that case the national party will start choosing candidates - just because that's the only way to get them all selected in time. It's not ideal because the national party doesn't really know much about local concerns, but there's not really much other option. That's when the issue of people being 'parachuted in' becomes a concern, and local parties tend to get angry that people known locally didn't get a chance.
Agree with much of what you say.
I think that Labour will feel pressured in picking a woman in any case (a stick to beat them with if they don't) but there are some good candidates. Jess Phillips is perhaps a bit too brash and will turn some off. However, I fear that Lansman and the cancerous cult will ensure that they have someone ideologically pure like Wrong-Daily. I mean....who cares about winning elections so long as your principles are rigidly enforced, demonstrated by GTTO# and No Passeran on your twitter handle, with no room for pragmatism. Let alone discussing issues with people outside your echo chamber....the Laura Pidcock way.
People in the provinces don't give a flying **** about the two state solution in Palestine. They also don't believe that a Christmas wish list can be paid for by getting Amazon and some oligarchs to pay a bit more tax. They need to focus on what people actually care about and be sensible about how to achieve that.
Where I disagree is the next election. The Labour Party will massively struggle, especially if some Long-Bailey/Burgon dream ticket is voted for by the membership. Even a more moderate one (e.g. Nandy/Rayner) will have a real struggle to regain the lost Red Wall but that's achievable in one term but what of getting some of Scotland back...and then the Midlands seats that they have to get to win a majority. Not places like West Brom (that they shouldn't have lost) but places like Nuneaton which was lost in 2010 to a 2k majority and now has a 14k Tory majority.
There's a lot of guff about how Corbyn has increased the vote and vote share but in the end, that means nothing. FPTP is where we are and so you have to win in places like Nuneaton, and piling up votes in metropolitan constituencies is a Pyrrhic victory.