Also why the hell does this need to go on until April
Mostly logistics, innit - won’t even know who’s on the ballot paper until mid Feb.
Honestly think we grossly overestimate how many people vote based on policy. Virtually every human-being i’ve ever met votes based on gut feeling, perceived charisma and, well, media misinformation.
I really don’t want to vote for any of 'em.
But is that based on gut/charisma or just policy?
Don’t find any of them very inspiring.
Getting unnecessarily annoyed at this. 7 endorsements for Starmer, 3 (!) for Phillips, 2 for Nandy and 1 each for RLB and Thornberry.
How are they even pretending that’s representative? I know it’s not news to this forum that the Guardian is a shitrag for people who recycle…but this feels like another new low
Probably is representative of the submissions from their readers
Don’t forget that the Guardian has long been a paper for the soft left through to Lib Dems - it’s never been the kind of place that enthuses Long-Bailey supporters.
Right, this tiny excerpt from Rayner’s speech:
“I also think political education is crucially overdue in this country and that our current curriculum teaches kids about colonialism and the empire and teaches them nothing about our democracy here today and that’s what we need to be doing
That is not a suggestion that we’re teaching the history of empire and colonialism too much. I don’t think she even implies it.
The criteria under discussion is not value but time; I don’t see where she could be questioning whether we should study these issues, but rather why we study them in the past but not also in the present. She calls for more current political education, she doesn’t call for less political history. The point is that if we see the value in studying one then we can then make the argument for studying the other - if we study empire and colonialism we should also study migrant rights and UK trade relationships.
Good to see we’re still assuming the absolute worst about everyone based on incredibly limited statements rather than their consistent behaviour across years of commitment and service to the party. You love to see it.
This isn’t about you, this is about the clip that’s been circulated and mischaracterises a good faith candidate in the leadership election. I’ve not referred to you anywhere.
Speaking without reference to my own preference, Rayner would have absolutely walked this if she’d have stood for leader.
I think we can safely say that Phillips is having the worst campaign by some distance. No chance she’s making it onto the final ballot. Doesn’t look like Thornberry will either, which is a shame because I think she’s a very viable candidate.
Starmer, Nandy and RLB all disappoint me in different ways. I don’t think any of them suggest a clear path to Tory beating. Still very undecided. The more I see of Starmer, the more I see Ed Miliband. At least RLB and Nandy come across as assured in what they believe.
I think its a shame she hasn’t, because I can’t see leadership qualities or much that inspires me in any of the actual candidates. Still hoping that RLB can convince me she’s more than a good cabinet member and that she is able to understand what needs to change (that 10/10 on Corbyn has stuck with me as an indicator she wants to continue in exactly the same way - fairly or unfairly - and she’s not yet dispelled that)
I’m pleased some of the board are seeing something I’m not, but I still need convincing if she’s to get my first preference.
The clip is doing the rounds on social media. You posted it here but it is outthere and it is what I’m trying to respond to.
I used and emphasised the words ‘too much’ because they’re the essence of what the clip is edited to imply but doesn’t actually contain any evidence of - that Rayner wants less or no teaching on colonialism or empire.
I am trying to engage in the best way I know how with a clip that seems designed to mis-characterize the candidate. I’m really sorry that you were the person who posted it so we’ve ended up interacting again. I really don’t know what else to do but when an obvious attack on RLB gets posted on the boards people call it out, when the same happens to Rayner no one says a word.
The ‘soft-left’ (I hate this phrase) aren’t to be trusted and therefore they’re fair game seems to be the message. EDIT: I mean the message from social media, not from any person in particular.
Did anyone watch the hustings video on youtube? I skimmed it a bit last night
I’ll be honest it just all comes across as quite flat and lacking passion. I know we’re in a tough spot, but I am struggling to feel we’ve got an inspiring group of candidates to pick from. The bench is limited and that’s been Labour’s issue for a long time, so one of the things we need to be fixing in the coming years is bringing through new candidates and backing them.
Maybe the strategy should be to start the organisational groundwork for the next couple of years while focussing on local elections, mayoral elections, and boosting the organisational capacity so that we’re in a stronger place for the next GE, and that doesn’t necessarily need you to have a leader who is primarily focused on winning the next election.
I think I’m going to vote for RLB because most of the people I respect and trust are recommending her. But I can’t say that I’ve seen any performance from her that has truly inspired me or made me think she’ll be a great leader - but I’m happy to accept that’s on me, and I need to take the time to watch more of her when I can.
I was more probably more amenable to Starmer than most earlier on, but I’m not convinced by him now, if he were a stronger performer that might make up for his shortcomings, but now I don’t even think he has that.
All my takes are a terrible mishmash of gut feeling, trying to reason out what the electorate might think of them, unreasonable prejudices and trying to parse what little policy they’ve come out with, so is probably way off base.
I just want the memes back.
I’m sorry but I really can’t tell if you want a response to this, so I’ll try and keep it brief.
I honestly tried not to direct my response to the clip at you in particular. I repeated those two words by accident - I swear I’m not that petty and I hope I don’t come off as such. If I even respond to a line of topic you’re involved in I am only doing so because I think there’s a perspective that someone else isn’t already offering, otherwise I’ll steer clear. I’m usually just trying to broaden debate.
The 2nd paragraph is absolutely not about anyone in particular but is about a broader sense in the party that the soft-left are unreliable and that it’s necessary to over interpret what they say at all times in case they’re about to go all ‘legitimate concerns’. ‘the left’ and the ‘soft left’ (I hate these terms so much) are supposed to be broadly in alliance but it feels very far from that. The twitter thread linked to in the main politics thread is an excellent example of this:
I don’t know how we’re supposed to be forming any sort of a united party when the ‘soft left’ has to keep convincing ‘the left’ (who could do with an identifying term that doesn’t get everyone else’s backs up) that it’s candidates are trustworthy and don’t want to forcefully suppress Scotland, work with UKIP, end the teaching of colonial history, or bring back Blair. It’s exhausting. I am as exhausted as anyone, but whilst no one else is talking about it I’m probably going to keep doing so.
One down. Maybe. I’m gonna miss her STEVE HOLT! campaign style if so.
Sake, now we all need a new first preference candidate.
It would make sense if she were to do so. Her campaign’s not even achieved the modest target of making the contest ‘a bit more interesting’. There’s no chance of her winning and she has shown no evidence that she is ready to lead. At all.
Wonder if it might finally give her pause for thought about how limiting her own particular way of doing politics actually is.