The next Labour Leader

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Come on its not rocket science.

"Take on Boris" why.........this is the mantra of one of the candidates Live on BBC spotlight

You don't have to take on boris you have to satisfy the electorate

Stop the old stop boris............boris could go tomorrow.

Get real.....................a new labour with a new base not the old corby lot........that obviously pull his strings.......................

[pwa]

There are many good choices for a new Labour leader. Problem is they aint going to get elected by the massive hard left wing rump that now controls the Party unless something radically changes
Al

I don't know if it's simple political agitation or ignorance, but your much repeated catchphrases lack any sort of analysis. Rather than the name calling, why not discuss policy? You choose, any policy you want, lets see how radically left wing it is.
Did you hear Keir Starmer unofficially launch his leadership campaign at a community centre a day or so ago? Sorry I can't find the vid, he listed one after the other the things there'd be no going back on, so many of them I wondered why we were changing leader. He's also repeated several times that he's no Corbynite but he is a socialist, I find him a bit wet, what do you think of him? Which policies do you think you'll approve/disapprove of? let's have some discussion rather than the drip, drip. drip of meaningless sound bites.
Militant, one of your favourites, do you know what it was? It defined Kinnock’s leadership years and you're still chuntering on about it, do you want to go find out how many militants the witch hunts found and expelled? Or even have a guess at it?

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

We need a Leader, preferably based outside the London bubble, who has their feet on the ground.

[Spinners]

There are many good choices for a new Labour leader. Problem is they aint going to get elected by the massive hard left wing rump that now controls the Party unless something radically changes
Al

I don't know if it's simple political agitation or ignorance, but your much repeated catchphrases lack any sort of analysis. Rather than the name calling, why not discuss policy? You choose, any policy you want, lets see how radically left wing it is.
Did you hear Keir Starmer unofficially launch his leadership campaign at a community centre a day or so ago? Sorry I can't find the vid, he listed one after the other the things there'd be no going back on, so many of them I wondered why we were changing leader. He's also repeated several times that he's no Corbynite but he is a socialist, I find him a bit wet, what do you think of him? Which policies do you think you'll approve/disapprove of? let's have some discussion rather than the drip, drip. drip of meaningless sound bites.
Militant, one of your favourites, do you know what it was? It defined Kinnock’s leadership years and you're still chuntering on about it, do you want to go find out how many militants the witch hunts found and expelled? Or even have a guess at it?

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

We need a Leader, preferably based outside the London bubble, who has their feet on the ground.

Could that be Jess Phillips?

[pwa]

I don't know if it's simple political agitation or ignorance, but your much repeated catchphrases lack any sort of analysis. Rather than the name calling, why not discuss policy? You choose, any policy you want, lets see how radically left wing it is.
Did you hear Keir Starmer unofficially launch his leadership campaign at a community centre a day or so ago? Sorry I can't find the vid, he listed one after the other the things there'd be no going back on, so many of them I wondered why we were changing leader. He's also repeated several times that he's no Corbynite but he is a socialist, I find him a bit wet, what do you think of him? Which policies do you think you'll approve/disapprove of? let's have some discussion rather than the drip, drip. drip of meaningless sound bites.
Militant, one of your favourites, do you know what it was? It defined Kinnock’s leadership years and you're still chuntering on about it, do you want to go find out how many militants the witch hunts found and expelled? Or even have a guess at it?

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

We need a Leader, preferably based outside the London bubble, who has their feet on the ground.

Could that be Jess Phillips?

For me, probably yes. But I doubt the membership is pragmatic enough to go for her.

[al_yrpal]

We can only wish...

Al

[PDQ Mobile]

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

We need a Leader, preferably based outside the London bubble, who has their feet on the ground.

And as I have said before.
This is straight out of the Tory Press.

As a Nation we didn't believe that a fairer distribution could improve lives.
(And Labour even had a half decent "Green" Manifesto.)
Because we were told it was all "ridiculous".
By a biased Press that represents vested interest, old and unfair Establishment structures and tax avoidance at the top.

Less ridiculous was apparently "taking back control" and a belief in a party that has been in power for a decade with very little (if anything?) of what it has promised achieved.
A party that has overseen many of the ills so evident in today's UK.
And closer ties to a sad Trumpian America.

From my perspective you were conned.
We shall see.

[pwa]

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

We need a Leader, preferably based outside the London bubble, who has their feet on the ground.

And as I have said before.
This is straight out of the Tory Press.

As a Nation we didn't believe that a fairer distribution could improve lives.
(And Labour even had a half decent "Green" Manifesto.)
Because we were told it was all "ridiculous".
By a biased Press that represents vested interest, old and unfair Establishment structures and tax avoidance at the top.

Less ridiculous was apparently "taking back control" and a belief in a party that has been in power for a decade with very little (if anything?) of what it has promised achieved.
A party that has overseen many of the ills so evident in today's UK.
And closer ties to a sad Trumpian America.

From my perspective you were conned.
We shall see.

If Labour sing your song to the next election they will lose again. Your approach is music to the ears of Boris. If you want endless Tory government, carry on. Remember, to win an election you don't need to convince people like yourself who voted Labour last time. You need to convince people like me who thought Labour's long, long list lovely as individual items but farcical when stacked up together.

[Spinners]

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

We need a Leader, preferably based outside the London bubble, who has their feet on the ground.

Could that be Jess Phillips?

For me, probably yes. But I doubt the membership is pragmatic enough to go for her.

I'd certainly rank her above Rebecca Long-Bailey. As for Sir Keir Starmer, I honestly thought he was a Tory until a few months ago (which I acknowledge is a failing on my part).

[PDQ Mobile]

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

We need a Leader, preferably based outside the London bubble, who has their feet on the ground.

And as I have said before.
This is straight out of the Tory Press.

As a Nation we didn't believe that a fairer distribution could improve lives.
(And Labour even had a half decent "Green" Manifesto.)
Because we were told it was all "ridiculous".
By a biased Press that represents vested interest, old and unfair Establishment structures and tax avoidance at the top.

Less ridiculous was apparently "taking back control" and a belief in a party that has been in power for a decade with very little (if anything?) of what it has promised achieved.
A party that has overseen many of the ills so evident in today's UK.
And closer ties to a sad Trumpian America.

From my perspective you were conned.
We shall see.

If Labour sing your song to the next election they will lose again. Your approach is music to the ears of Boris. If you want endless Tory government, carry on.

You do not know what the end of Boris will be caused by- yet.
It is too soon for such an assertion.

If things go ever more badly on a social and economic level the political tide may well turn.
Even another conflict and war are not so fanciful if aligned with Trump.

You can only fool most of the people some of the time.

Then an honest leader's, that sticks with belief in fairer society, time may come.
Better than policy blown like so much chaff hither and thither.

[Cyril Haearn]

Was he ever a tory, Sir Keir?

[PDQ Mobile]

I'd certainly rank her above Rebecca Long-Bailey. As for Sir Keir Starmer, I honestly thought he was a Tory until a few months ago (which I acknowledge is a failing on my part).

You are clearly an astute political commentator then!
I must take more interest in astute political views.

[Spinners]

I'd certainly rank her above Rebecca Long-Bailey. As for Sir Keir Starmer, I honestly thought he was a Tory until a few months ago (which I acknowledge is a failing on my part).

You are clearly an astute political commentator then!
I must take more interest in astute political views.

Thanks for that very cheap shot. I'll not participate any further.

[Cyril Haearn]

I'd certainly rank her above Rebecca Long-Bailey. As for Sir Keir Starmer, I honestly thought he was a Tory until a few months ago (which I acknowledge is a failing on my part).

You are clearly an astute political commentator then!
I must take more interest in astute political views.

Thanks for that very cheap shot. I'll not participate any further.

Please to stay!
Sir Keir just has the authority and seriousness we expect of a leader, he is apparently outrageously clever
Why do such people engage in politics when they could easily afford to retire to Pembrokeshire, do a bit of cycling and breed roses?

I googled Keir Hardie, landed at Niclas y Glais, another Great Welshperson

[PH]

I see that David Lammy has ruled himself out of the running, his reason being that he thought he'd be seen as too anti-Brexit to win back Leave voters that Labour lost at the general election.
I'd agree, but if it applies to him, it'll equally apply to Keir Starmer. I repeat, sort the policy out then chose the leader best suited to implement it. If the party decides to campaign to remain, or re-enter or align closely with the EU, then it isn't going to attract back all those leave voters that have turned against it. That's a party decision, but if that's the case, it needs the leader who can fight for that. If the party decides that it's going to accept Brexit and make the best of it that it can, it needs a different leader.

[PH]

As I have said before, mostly what was wrong with Labour's list of policies was its length. Too many of them. Ten times too many. So many that it was funny. Free this, free that, and all very nice, individually. But collectively, ridiculous.

Good point, I'd rather have seen three main issues in depth, though there wasn't much in it that I thought wrong, or unobtainable, some of it was too trivial for a manifesto and could have easily been left out.