The next Labour Leader

[carpetcleaner]

The Labour Party's membership certainly isn't representative of the population or even of Labour voters.

The fact that they elected Mr Corbyn as leader shows that. He is bottom of just about every political popularity poll that takes place.

The kids at Glastonbury liked him though.

[mercalia]

Bring back Corbyn

Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long-Bailey, both of whom have signed a pledge card put out by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. The 12-point manifesto includes a demand that members with ‘transphobic’ views — that is, those who do not believe that men who identify as women are in fact women — be expelled from the party. It describes gender-critical feminist organisations like Woman’s Place UK as ‘trans-exclusionist hate groups’. Keir Starmer is the only leadership contender not to sign the pledge.

Seems like the nutcases are taking over

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/labours-trans-rights-problem/

if either of these women ( are they women?) get to be leader we will wish for the good old days of Corbyn?
Not sure if I could vote for Labour any more

[pwa]

Bring back Corbyn

Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long-Bailey, both of whom have signed a pledge card put out by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. The 12-point manifesto includes a demand that members with ‘transphobic’ views — that is, those who do not believe that men who identify as women are in fact women — be expelled from the party. It describes gender-critical feminist organisations like Woman’s Place UK as ‘trans-exclusionist hate groups’. Keir Starmer is the only leadership contender not to sign the pledge.

Seems like the nutcases are taking over

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/labours-trans-rights-problem/

if either of these women ( are they women?) get to be leader we will wish for the good old days of Corbyn?
Not sure if I could vote for Labour any more

I know Blair is a hate figure for many current Labour Party members, but his analysis is often spot on. And he should be listened to. He was a winner, something that has been absent in the Party for a decade. Why can't they focus? Why can't they just say, "Yes we are for transgender people being treated as the equal of other people, because we are fighting for equality for everyone, for every minority" and resist signing up to lists devised elsewhere. There are some decent people in Labour but I'm not yet hearing a leader with the focus and winning instinct of Blair. I'm seeing people who follow agendas, not people who dictate them.

[Tangled Metal]

Wasn't Blair the last labour leader to win an election? Does that imply labour hates winners?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Wasn't Blair the last labour leader to win an election? Does that imply labour hates winners?

This isn't change for change sake its change to attract voters or die.
Well all loose, like others you don't necessarily like all your parties policy's but it helps if it grabs someones attention.

[Oldjohnw]

Nandy and Long-Bailey have both said they would press the button to annihilate part of the human race. Starmer has not said. The last LibDem leader, of all people, agreed she would.

What has society become?

[pwa]

Nandy and Long-Bailey have both said they would press the button to annihilate part of the human race. Starmer has not said. The last LibDem leader, of all people, agreed she would.

What has society become?

Pragmatic. Real world. It isn't commitment to actually pushing the button. It is commitment to making potential aggressors think you might do that if they attack us in that way. And hence providing a deterrent. It is fine to know that you won't actually do it, but you must not show your cards by saying so.

[Oldjohnw]

Nandy and Long-Bailey have both said they would press the button to annihilate part of the human race. Starmer has not said. The last LibDem leader, of all people, agreed she would.

What has society become?

Pragmatic. Real world. It isn't commitment to actually pushing the button. It is commitment to making potential aggressors think you might do that if they attack us in that way. And hence providing a deterrent. It is fine to know that you won't actually do it, but you must not show your cards by saying so.

Oh I agree. But nevertheless, what have we become? So we have people who would kill half the world described as moderate and those who won't described as extremist.

[pwa]

Nandy and Long-Bailey have both said they would press the button to annihilate part of the human race. Starmer has not said. The last LibDem leader, of all people, agreed she would.

What has society become?

Pragmatic. Real world. It isn't commitment to actually pushing the button. It is commitment to making potential aggressors think you might do that if they attack us in that way. And hence providing a deterrent. It is fine to know that you won't actually do it, but you must not show your cards by saying so.

Oh I agree. But nevertheless, what have we become? So we have people who would kill half the world described as moderate and those who won't described as extremist.

No. We have people who won't publicly rule out pressing the button if we have ourselves come under attack, but we don't know that they would actually do it. It is possible for them to rule it out privately so long as it stays private. The only problem comes if it is ruled out publicly.

Those who publicly state they won't do it are not extremists in the sense of terrorists, but they are out of tune with public.

You say "What have we become?" but this has been the essence of the nuclear deterrent since the 1950s, so since before I was born.

Labour leaders just stay quiet on this. That is all they have to do. The one that didn't was Corbyn, and he couldn't because his position was already known. It cost him and the party when it was used against him. It was used against him less at the last election simply because there were so many other sticks to beat him with.

[Oldjohnw]

Pragmatic. Real world. It isn't commitment to actually pushing the button. It is commitment to making potential aggressors think you might do that if they attack us in that way. And hence providing a deterrent. It is fine to know that you won't actually do it, but you must not show your cards by saying so.

Oh I agree. But nevertheless, what have we become? So we have people who would kill half the world described as moderate and those who won't described as extremist.

No. We have people who won't publicly rule out pressing the button if we have ourselves come under attack, but we don't know that they would actually do it. It is possible for them to rule it out privately so long as it stays private. The only problem comes if it is ruled out publicly.

Those who publicly state they won't do it are not extremists in the sense of terrorists, but they are out of tune with public.

You say "What have we become?" but this has been the essence of the nuclear deterrent since the 1950s, so since before I was born.

No! Labour and LibDems were once parties of nuclear disarmament.

[pwa]

Oh I agree. But nevertheless, what have we become? So we have people who would kill half the world described as moderate and those who won't described as extremist.

No. We have people who won't publicly rule out pressing the button if we have ourselves come under attack, but we don't know that they would actually do it. It is possible for them to rule it out privately so long as it stays private. The only problem comes if it is ruled out publicly.

Those who publicly state they won't do it are not extremists in the sense of terrorists, but they are out of tune with public.

You say "What have we become?" but this has been the essence of the nuclear deterrent since the 1950s, so since before I was born.

No! Labour and LibDems were once parties of nuclear disarmament.

It depends what you mean by that. Labour PMs have not done away with the nuclear deterrent, but they have supported efforts at multilateral disarmament. Unilateralist disarmament has been supported only by the far left of the party, and they don't produce PMs.

A nice little BBC piece about Labour's troubled history on this topic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35371074

[Tangled Metal]

Wanting disarmament doesn't mean that if attacked you won't use what you have. Even libdems could, if they got into power, keep the deterrent position going but still campaign on multilateral disarmament.

Does signing a pledge when you don't agree with parts of it something you think is right? Why would you put your signature to something that you might agree with the sentiment but not to the letter of the pledge? Could you trust anyone who does that?

Imho it is a sign that they'll say or do anything to gain votes. Perhaps a sign they're a good prospect just poor judgement.

[pwa]

The wise stance for a Labour leader, with regard to the nuclear deterrent, would be to accept it but say that if elected they would push for a resumption of multilateral disarmament taking in established nuclear powers and emerging ones like North Korea. That would be electorally sound and nobody could get too upset about that.

This exemplifies the Labour leadership and direction debate really. Will they go for a leader and a direction that takes account of where middle of the ground opinion is in the UK, or will they plonk themselves down firmly on the left and expect the electorate to move to their position?

[Tangled Metal]

I agree. No nuclear power should disarm unilaterally or even a leader make the deterrent void by stating publicly they will never press the button. If they did that then personally that decision should be placed with another person who cannot be countermanded on that decision.

[PH]

Nandy and Long-Bailey have both said they would press the button to annihilate part of the human race. Starmer has not said. The last LibDem leader, of all people, agreed she would.

IMO it's one of those daft questions that doesn't deserve an answer, but what candidate is brave enough to say so? Who knows what horrors would be going on before a leader was expected to make such a decision, then if they were convinced it was the only way to improve that situation they would, regardless of what they'd said years before. I can't imagine a scenario where it would improve the situation, we're not a superpower with protection from the "Mutual destruction" theory, we're a small nation which doesn't need membership of that club. I'd be happy to see this country unilaterally disarm, even within the military budget the money could be better spent. Not least in the way we treat ex servicemen.
As for the Labour leadership candidates - Nandy and Long-Bailey voted against Trident renewal and Starmer for. That's probably a better indicator of their positions.