blandy Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Long-Bailey has set out her stall quite clearly. I wouldn't expect you to like it, but that doesn't mean she hasn't done it. It's not about whether I like it or not. It's about what she's said - She's basically defended Corbyn's legacy, whilst admitting Labour wasn't trusted by voters on multiple issues. She's said it was ultimately Corbyn's fault they lost, but that he would go down in history for his policies. I mean it's like a criminal lack of self awareness. "we just got hammered, voters didn't trust us on several key areas, the policies are great though and it was Jezza's fault" - major face palm - I'm gonna do the same as the bloke who just got historically walloped. Doh! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, blandy said: It's not about whether I like it or not. It's about what she's said - She's basically defended Corbyn's legacy, whilst admitting Labour wasn't trusted by voters on multiple issues. She's said it was ultimately Corbyn's fault they lost, but that he would go down in history for his policies. I mean it's like a criminal lack of self awareness. "we just got hammered, voters didn't trust us on several key areas, the policies are great though and it was Jezza's fault" - major face palm - I'm gonna do the same as the bloke who just got historically walloped. Doh! Yes, I don't think she's completely right in her analysis either. The policy slate presented at the election was large, and not all parts of it were successful. However, she has deliberately emphasised the Green New Deal (bad name, and I wish they would change it), which is not a surprise since she had a large hand in developing that policy in the first place. That is a conscious bet on the future, specifically a bet that the environment will be more of an issue in 2024, and that Labour will both need to protect itself against the Greens, and will need to have made a consistent and strong argument for reorienting the economy towards both emission reduction and reducing inequality. As bets go, that seems reasonable to me. My guess is that the environment will be a bigger issue in five years time, and that the Tories will do little to improve it. However, politics is not only (or even that much) about policies, and Long-Bailey may be a poor choice for other reasons, notably (as you say) her apparent unwillingness to symbolically break with Corbyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Rebecca Long-Bailey would be the end of Labour. Horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 31 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Kind of baffled that you would say that to be honest. I'm allowed to come to own views of the candidates, and if I don't rate one of them, you don't get to decide that the reason I don't rate her is because she's a woman I said it because it echo's all the misogynistic crap that's been chucked at her since the weekend (and well before that). Fishwife, clueless, rentagob etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 19 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Rebecca Long-Bailey would be the end of Labour. Horrendous. These are her ideas That's the emu candidate, head in the sand, plow on with the same agenda, the agenda that lost, lost in a way rarely seen before. You can't unite the current Labour voters with the former Labour voters by offering the same. It's a complete lack of logic. Sh'e essentially saying the policies were right, they were just sold to the people slightly badly. The people completely understood and roundly rejected them If this is the idea RLB is offering, then it just reads as more of the same 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 31 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: the Green New Deal ..... she had a large hand in developing that policy in the first place. That is a conscious bet on the future, specifically a bet that the environment will be more of an issue in 2024, and that Labour will both need to protect itself against the Greens, and will need to have made a consistent and strong argument for reorienting the economy towards both emission reduction and reducing inequality. As bets go, that seems reasonable to me. My guess is that the environment will be a bigger issue in five years time, and that the Tories will do little to improve it. GND - nicked off The Greens and wossername AOC in that big america. Not sure it's really something Labour or RLB developed. Still, it's the right direction, certainly. And I agree with you that the Enviro will only get more an more important to voters and the tories are not going to be on the right side of things, as ever. So as you say, good bet. The thing you say and (implicit in what RLB says) about "Labour needing to protect itself from the Greens" is (IMO) part of the problem. Doing things not because they believe in them, but to stop someone else getting "those sort of votes". They should be co-operating, not trying to kill them (electorally). The stage we're at with all the candidates is that as always, candidates promise nice things. The analysis part for me is less about that, it's more about where they stand outside of the platitudes. Now Corbyn's gone/going they're all quite happy to say how anti-semitism was dealt with appallingly, how Corbyn was wrong about this and that and the other, about policies that were wrong....etc. The ones that were defending what they now criticise, they lose credibility marks, and honesty for me, in a big way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Yes, I don't think she's completely right in her analysis either. The policy slate presented at the election was large, and not all parts of it were successful. However, she has deliberately emphasised the Green New Deal (bad name, and I wish they would change it), which is not a surprise since she had a large hand in developing that policy in the first place. That is a conscious bet on the future, specifically a bet that the environment will be more of an issue in 2024, and that Labour will both need to protect itself against the Greens, and will need to have made a consistent and strong argument for reorienting the economy towards both emission reduction and reducing inequality. As bets go, that seems reasonable to me. My guess is that the environment will be a bigger issue in five years time, and that the Tories will do little to improve it. However, politics is not only (or even that much) about policies, and Long-Bailey may be a poor choice for other reasons, notably (as you say) her apparent unwillingness to symbolically break with Corbyn. Betting now on the environment being the big issue in five years time. That would be like having a decade of austerity, campaigning against austerity, and then finding the austerity party announcing the end of austerity as their election pitch. It's a bet that is easily covered by a last minute change from the incumbent party that suddenly see where the mood is heading and act like the previous iteration of themselves were helpless pawns and only now can they plant trees and invite Greta over for a soya latte. It's so easily undermined. My bet is that if the numbers are there in the polls, the tories will be all over it. That doesn't mean don't do it. It just means it ain't the golden ticket. People liked the idea of nationalising the trains - stick with that. The trains that are nationalised reduced their fares last week, the private ones increased their fares. For the incumbent to change tack on that issue ... win win. Nationalise some utility. Government control of some of the power supply industry can easily be sold as part of our defence and security policy. Rather than have Chinese nuclear power stations, lets be the best at offshore wind and tidal lagoons and then export that expertise. If the tories pick that up ... win win. Concentrate on telling water companies they have to stop losing so much water, give them a target and a deadline and consequences. Who could argue with that? Promise better housing that isn't based on 1950's communal principles. Give towns the money to expand properly and not just chuck more houses in more fields. Do not have a list of 74 big promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, bickster said: I said it because it echo's all the misogynistic crap that's been chucked at her since the weekend (and well before that). Fishwife, clueless, rentagob etc. I don't see how any of my comments in this thread 'echo' that. Obviously calling someone a 'fishwife' is misogynist. I haven't said any such thing. I have (robustly) criticised her candidacy, which I think has been bad and is sorely lacking any kind of coherent vision. I have also criticised her tendency to talk about herself instead of her politics, but I don't think that's the same as calling someone a 'rentagob', which is just an insult. I have consistently argued for the Labour party to have more female representation, though I don't think the gender of the candidates is the only - or even main - thing that matters in this election. My dislike for Phillips is not based on her gender. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Jess Phillips, she openly disliked Corbyn and Blair. Dangerous place, the middle of the road. Surely if the appointment of Johnson has shown us anything, it’s shown us that you don’t need to look or act like a statesman to get the top job. To my knowledge JP has never mis quoted any partially remembered Greek, she’s never manufactured getting stuck on a zip wire or attempted to build a private bridge across the Thames or hid in a fridge. So lots of the old criteria for being PM appear to have become redundant recently. Given a choice for PM of Corbyn / Blair / Cameron / May / Johnson / Phillips well I’m pretty clear on who the winner is for me (I am aware this is not the current option list). Remember, she doesn’t have to please everyone. She doesn’t even need to get 51% of the electorate. She just needs more than the tories, which should mean she would need to get support somewhere in the low forties. I can see JP managing that. I’m not sure what the media could ‘get her’ on? Hell, you don’t even need to answer questions or appear on programmes you don’t fancy anymore. Just stay away from the BBC unless it totally suits your own agenda on your own terms and just don’t answer questions you don’t like. By don’t answer, I don’t mean waffle some shit about having been very clear, I mean just insist on talking about something else to someone else. Incidentally, on that sort of subject there was a Labour MP on the radio this morning throwing her fascinator in to the ring to be deputy leader. I’d never heard of her before, first question she was asked, her answer started with ‘I’ve been very clear…’. Not sure what else she said, I put music on and had Super Furry Karaoke for the rest of the journey. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: which I think has been bad and is sorely lacking any kind of coherent vision. Why pick her out? None of them are, we aren't at that stage yet. Not one of them is offering a coherent vision RLB - More of the same with nicer bows KS - Hey look I'm left wing (I actually think I understand why he's pitching himself that way right now but its actually alienating some of his current supporters) LN - Lets use the local press IL - quite frankly he could promise the earth, he's a crook and I really couldn't give a shit what he says, he should be in jail. ET - I have absolutely no idea what she's said and done, that in itself speak volumes CL - See ET comments, not heard a thing JP - At least I'm prepared to roll up my sleeves and verbally brawl with them Thats it, thats what I get from them, no coherent vision from any of them but at least some of them appear to understand where Labour went wrong, I'd include JP on that side and KS. LN thinks she does but I don't agree with her, the others, meh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Incidentally, on that sort of subject there was a Labour MP on the radio this morning throwing her fascinator in to the ring to be deputy leader. I’d never heard of her before, first question she was asked, her answer started with ‘I’ve been very clear…’. Not sure what else she said, I put music on and had Super Furry Karaoke for the rest of the journey. Presumably would have been Rosena Allin-Khan. From what I've seen and read, she seems very good. More hers and fewer Richard Burgons and things would probably be a lot better for the party. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, bickster said: IL - quite frankly he could promise the earth, he's a crook and I really couldn't give a shit what he says, he should be in jail. Not standing is he? Pretty sure he's already said he's supporting Long-Bailey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, ml1dch said: Not standing is he? Pretty sure he's already said he's supporting Long-Bailey. Thats a shame, it would have been nice to have someone that absolutely everyone could hate in the election I expected him to drop out at some point and take that position but expected it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Betting now on the environment being the big issue in five years time.... That doesn't mean don't do it. It just means it ain't the golden ticket. Personal opinion now, rather than general comment, but I suspect it will be absolutely critical and that inconsistency over climate and the enviro will be a major factor - so that last minute adoption/conversion just won't wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, blandy said: Personal opinion now, rather than general comment, but I suspect it will be absolutely critical and that inconsistency over climate and the enviro will be a major factor - so that last minute adoption/conversion just won't wash. I think you misoverestimate the electorate. I give as my evidence: austerity and who was best placed to end it. Five years from now, Boris will be promising to lay down in front of the bulldozers and the media will love it. Probably get stuck on a zip wire in some rainforest somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, blandy said: GND - nicked off The Greens and wossername AOC in that big america. Not sure it's really something Labour or RLB developed. Still, it's the right direction, certainly. And I agree with you that the Enviro will only get more an more important to voters and the tories are not going to be on the right side of things, as ever. So as you say, good bet. The name is terrible, yes. It doesn't mean very much to British voters to call something a 'New Deal'. Long-Bailey (obviously) did not develop the Democrats' policy, but she was responsible (among others) for developing the policy that reached the manifesto. Any confusion on that matter brought about by the name is Labour's fault, for sure. 18 minutes ago, blandy said: The thing you say and (implicit in what RLB says) about "Labour needing to protect itself from the Greens" is (IMO) part of the problem. Doing things not because they believe in them, but to stop someone else getting "those sort of votes". They should be co-operating, not trying to kill them (electorally). That's not what I'm saying. I have no doubt that, whatever her faults, she believes in the policies she helped develop. However, people on this site make a big deal about electability. Well, you can lose votes in more than one way - they don't only go to the Tories. Labour won't win if there's a big swing toward Green or Lib Dem in the next election (in fact, about half of the roughly 8 point swing away from Labour went to the Lib Dems this time), and since, as you say, the Tories will not deal adequately with this issue, it would be better for the environment if Labour actually won next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 Labour won't win next time by offering a continuity candidate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 35 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I’m not sure what the media could ‘get her’ on? Hell, you don’t even need to answer questions or appear on programmes you don’t fancy anymore. Just stay away from the BBC unless it totally suits your own agenda on your own terms and just don’t answer questions you don’t like. By don’t answer, I don’t mean waffle some shit about having been very clear, I mean just insist on talking about something else to someone else. This was her recently attempting to explain why she hadn't left the party when Corbyn was reelected leader, despite having threatened to do so, which I think demonstrates some of the qualities you are worried about to be honest: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: This was her recently attempting to explain why she hadn't left the party when Corbyn was reelected leader, despite having threatened to do so, which I think demonstrates some of the qualities you are worried about to be honest: Strange you use the words of the "posh" GMB interviewer (Soz no idea who she is) rather than the words that JP said she used, JP actually says about the threat of leaving the Labour Party that the interviewer was misquoting her and then goes on to say what she actually said. Not sure why thats cringey at all. Hell I wonder what would have happened had Corbyn been asked that question during his leadership? The question is utter tripe, lets be honest. How many MPs do we think are out there that don't 100% believe in the policies of the party (on any side), I hope rather a lot or they're all self serving automatons. Poor journalism is all I hear in that clip 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 I can't put the volume on, I'm in charge of a high level executive office facility here. Putting on a fat pair of bright white Beats would also give the game away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts