The next Labour Leader

[Polisman]

Statutory Instruments are regulations done by ministers. They tend to deal with things such as height of headlamps so that there is common safety throughout Europe, or composition of windscreens or weight of lorries. Pretty important stuff which as Al says, will remain.

We have always made our own laws on the fundamental things. No-one tells us how to run the NHS, or whether to sell off our railways or electricity or go to war. We make our own mistakes.

Yes, precisely. And figures like '60%' are just inflammatory nonsense, a big stick used to bash stupid people with, like £350, million a week saved on the side of a bus. Lies. Basically lying. The time for lies is over. This government has now got to deliver, stop minimising the risks or go. Its really that simple.

[pete75]

Statutory Instruments are regulations done by ministers. They tend to deal with things such as height of headlamps so that there is common safety throughout Europe, or composition of windscreens or weight of lorries. Pretty important stuff which as Al says, will remain.

We have always made our own laws on the fundamental things. No-one tells us how to run the NHS, or whether to sell off our railways or electricity or go to war. We make our own mistakes.

Yes, precisely. And figures like '60%' are just inflammatory nonsense, a big stick used to bash stupid people with, like £350, million a week saved on the side of a bus. Lies. Basically lying. The time for lies is over. This government has now got to deliver, stop minimising the risks or go. Its really that simple.

It hasn't got to deliver, it's just got to convince a goodly proportion of the electorate that it's delivering. I suspect they'll find the latter fairly easy given Dominic Cummins cunning, the largely Tory controlled press and increasing governmental control of our state broadcaster.

Actually delivering is difficult so they'll just make a token effort.

[bovlomov]

It hasn't got to deliver, it's just got to convince a goodly proportion of the electorate that it's delivering. I suspect they'll find the latter fairly easy given Dominic Cummins cunning, the largely Tory controlled press and increasing governmental control of our state broadcaster.

Actually delivering is difficult so they'll just make a token effort.

I agree. It isn't sustainable, but it will work in the short to medium term. Division rather than co-operation, lies rather than truth, slogans rather than policy.

They aren't doing this because they are clever. They do it because they are unscrupulous.

[reohn2]

It hasn't got to deliver, it's just got to convince a goodly proportion of the electorate that it's delivering. I suspect they'll find the latter fairly easy given Dominic Cummins cunning, the largely Tory controlled press and increasing governmental control of our state broadcaster.

Actually delivering is difficult so they'll just make a token effort.

I agree. It isn't sustainable, but it will work in the short to medium term. Division rather than co-operation, lies rather than truth, slogans rather than policy.

They aren't doing this because they are clever. They do it because they are unscrupulous.

Which goes for the whole and not just a part of the Tories will do to the country over the coming parliament and beyond.Shysters and liars to a wo/man,we've definitely got the politicians we deserve,all those Labour voters who voted Tory at this 2019 election will rue the day they voted for the likes of this bunch.

[francovendee]

I'm not sure they will. They'll be fed a load of lies blaming factors outside the government's control, legacy from the last Labour government and those nasty EU people.
With enough repetition it'll be believed.☹️

[reohn2]

I'm not sure they will. They'll be fed a load of lies blaming factors outside the government's control, legacy from the last Labour government and those nasty EU people.
With enough repetition it'll be believed.☹️

There's only so much force feeding of crap and lies people will accept before they see what's staring them in the face.

[Mike Sales]

I'm not sure they will. They'll be fed a load of lies blaming factors outside the government's control, legacy from the last Labour government and those nasty EU people.
With enough repetition it'll be believed.☹️

There's only so much force feeding of crap and lies people will accept before they see what's staring them in the face.

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

[pete75]

I'm not sure they will. They'll be fed a load of lies blaming factors outside the government's control, legacy from the last Labour government and those nasty EU people.
With enough repetition it'll be believed.☹️

There's only so much force feeding of crap and lies people will accept before they see what's staring them in the face.

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous"

[horizon]

I wonder if it's time for the British to drop their (IMV immature) fixation with leaders. This idea that the big strong father figure (male or female) is going to sort out the horrible monsters lurking under the bed is surely ready to be consigned to the dustbin of childhood fairy stories. And with it hopefully the knight in shining white armour on a charger, that rescuer of adolescent females from their angst.

Adult life is more complicated than that and demands a range of skills and approaches rarely if ever found in one person. Unfortunately the male ego is ever awaiting the chance to play the part of hero to his worshipping crowds and Hollywood does little to disabuse its audience of this fantasy notion. Braveheart come in please.

Some well regarded research a few years ago found that a key factor (yes, key) in the outcome of WW2 was the extent to which Churchill (unlike Hitler) was constrained by the Whitehall committee system. Good decisions were the result of dull and painstaking committe work, not a flash of genius as the leader looked at himself in the bathroom mirror. The Germans had no such advantage.

So, rather than being tied to the moods, ego and health (mental and physical) of one person, it might be better for the Labour party (and Cycling UK and everyone else) to have a good committee, well chaired and run making good decisions for the benefit of the country. It might leave the Sunday papers and Andrew Marr a little frustrated and scratching around for sensational stories but that's far better than all of us being saddled with a medieval concept of kingship to run our affairs.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Probably your best post yet

The problem will be in implementing it, without any corruption, from connected individuals.

[Polisman]

It looks like Keir Starmer is going to walk it in the race for the Leadership. Personally, I would have had him overany Labour leader in the past ten years. He's got the grit and the gravitas to take on Boris and the party opposite. The problem now though is perennial: the unions and the power they wield.

[PH]

I wonder if it's time for the British to drop their (IMV immature) fixation with leaders.

It isn't a particularly British thing though is it? I'm wondering if any other country has dropped the leader format and what replaced it.
The irony is that a Labour Party under Corbyn was likely to be closer to that than anything we're likely to see again for a generation, if ever. With policy coming from the NEC and guided by the membership.

Some well regarded research a few years ago found that a key factor (yes, key) in the outcome of WW2 was the extent to which Churchill (unlike Hitler) was constrained by the Whitehall committee system. Good decisions were the result of dull and painstaking committe work, not a flash of genius as the leader looked at himself in the bathroom mirror. The Germans had no such advantage.

Nothing to do with Stalin then and the 27 million Russians who lost their lives? Or the Americans joining in, not only to defeat the Nazis but also to restrict Soviet gains? I don't downplay the British involvement in WWII, or the achievements of the British Military and personnel, but the idea that we were key to it's outcome downplays the part played by others.

[Mike Sales]

It looks like Keir Starmer is going to walk it in the race for the Leadership. Personally, I would have had him overany Labour leader in the past ten years. He's got the grit and the gravitas to take on Boris and the party opposite. The problem now though is perennial: the unions and the power they wield.

Squads of journalists are already sifting through his past, searching for Marxist forebears, meetings with selected bogeymen or clumsy bacon butty eating.

[horizon]

The irony is that a Labour Party under Corbyn was likely to be closer to that than anything we're likely to see again for a generation, if ever.
.

Exactly - great leader but didn't tick the right box for the TV viewing public. So now we have Boris. Electing a "leader" becomes a personality contest.

Nothing to do with Stalin then and the 27 million Russians who lost their lives? Or the Americans joining in, not only to defeat the Nazis but also to restrict Soviet gains? I don't downplay the British involvement in WWII, or the achievements of the British Military and personnel, but the idea that we were key to it's outcome downplays the part played by others

Just to be clear, the research was saying that it wasn't Churchill who/that won the war which is what we are led to believe (cf proposal to rename Heathrow airport) never mind the Russians etc. Churchill emerged as a great leader because (according to the research) his worst excesses were constrained by various dull and "inefficient" committees. The "key" bit is that at least one player had good leadership (i.e. by committee). I would have thought the the same applied to FDR as well. It wouldn't surprise me if the party system in the USSR had something of the same effect on Stalin as well.

[Spinners]

Do we think that a Labour leadership contender TV debate would be interesting and entertaining? I'd certainly watch it.