Jump to content

What is the point of Labour ?


pawpar

Recommended Posts

 
Totally agree.
There's some kind of an obsession with the idea that the next labour leader "has to be a woman". I get the impression that in some circles even Dianne Abbot would be eagerly welcomed to the top spot.
As you say, the right candidate with the right qualities whatever the gender.
 
This, and this positive discrimination needs to be called out by the MSM.
After all did they not say the Lib Dem leader needed to be a woman...............
images.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

As you say, the right candidate with the right qualities whatever the gender.

 

In general, obviously yes. But it's bizarre how often the right candidate is male. In Labour's case, that's been literally every single time. Maybe the bar for "right candidate" status is higher for women.

Wee aside that I learned recently - there are eight constituencies in North Yorkshire. Six of them have never elected a woman at a general election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Lots of rumours that Rebecca Long-Bailey and Angela Raynor will be the new leadership duo.

Think Johnson's 'manners' may be shown up in having to face them across the floor.

 

Can't help but feel the direction of the Labour Party will be crafted by the media, towards the centre, so that when the Tories are shown up they (media) have an acceptable alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GordonS said:

In general, obviously yes. But it's bizarre how often the right candidate is male. In Labour's case, that's been literally every single time. Maybe the bar for "right candidate" status is higher for women.

Wee aside that I learned recently - there are eight constituencies in North Yorkshire. Six of them have never elected a woman at a general election. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen an argument going around that Corbyn didn't do too badly because he got more votes than Blair. This is a bit misleading.

Corbyn got 701,487, or 6.8% more votes than Blair's lowest, in 2005. But the electorate in 2005 was 44,180,243; last week it was 47,587,254. So Corbyn got 6.8% more votes than Blair, while the electorate is 3,407,011 larger now -  or 7.2%.

However you slice it, it's a worse result.

And that's before we get to the fact that this was a government that had been in power for 8 years winning a third majority, after the Iraq War, and in an election in which the Lib Dems got 22%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

I think Socialists are the way to go. Socialism wasn't invented by Corbyn and McDonnell and I'll be going a long time after they've gone.

It wasn't Socialism that got defeated, it was the the way it was sold and the people responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It wasn't Socialism that got defeated, it was the the way it was sold and the people responsible.

Yes, maybe. So sell it better and don't let Corbyn or McDonnell have any Senior position within the party as they're electoral poison.

I don't see why RLB couldn't do well. She's never held one of the (Opposition versions of the) Great Offices of State so it would be a stretch to suggest she bares responsibility for the election disaster.

Edited by Bully Wee Villa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm a natural optimist. Faith in humanity has become a devalued commodity in recent years.

Quote

It wasn't Socialism that got defeated, it was the the way it was sold and the people responsible.

So basically you supported the Corbynites for four and a half years and are now trying to salvage ideology from the wreckage by throwing your previous heroes under the bus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Yes, maybe. So sell it better and don't let Corbyn or McDonnell have any Senior position within the party as they're electoral poison.

I don't see why RLB couldn't do well. She's never held one of the (Opposition versions of the) Great Offices of State so it would be a stretch to suggest she bares responsibility for the election disaster.

She was Corbyn's leading substitute in the debates, front and centre, and had a high shadow cabinet position. I'm not against her, just think she might toil doing PMQ's every week and maybe Nandy could take the notch down a bit and be more effective, over probably 5 years of opposition. And more importantly, I've got a bet on Nandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...