Monday 16th December 2019

Post by **refitman** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 7:01 am

Morning all.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 7:42 am

Chris Packham was on R4 this morning talking about saving ancient woodlands. It was an interesting interview. This whole Tories not appearing on the Today programme could work out really well, especially if other politicians boycott it too. We could hear from some experts for a change and maybe actually learn something other than Tories are all duplicitous liars and Labour politicians can't get a word in edgeways.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 9:59 am

Good morning, everyone.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 10:10 am

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 11:11 am

gilsey wrote:

Thank you. I sometimes need to read someone articulate to make sense of what I feel...

Reference 'eyes off the ball' and 'tinkering around the edges' - free broadband and banning Public schools...

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 11:21 am

Free broadband is hardly "tinkering" - its a potentially transformative policy.

And doing away with public schools wasn't actually in the manifesto.

The real mistake, as I said yesterday, may have been being *too* ambitious and not concentrating on a few key messages as in 2017.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 11:31 am

I think gilsey's post on yesterday's thread here regarding the incongruity of voters rebelling against governmental leadership by voting for the same government is worth re-reading. The linked quote suggests the voter didn't realise which party was in government. Willow904's response helped make some sense of it but I'm staggered it's possible convincing some a different party were in government.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 11:55 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Free broadband is hardly "tinkering" - its a potentially trans formative policy.

And doing away with public schools wasn't actually in the manifesto.

The real mistake, as I said yesterday, may have been being *too* ambitious and not concentrating on a few key messages as in 2017.

The " 'tinkering' " was a quote from the twitter link. Yes I get that it'd be trans formative. But when being battered with 'Get Brexit Done' something with equal brevity and weight needs to counterbalance it.

Public schools may not have been in the " 'actual' " manifesto. but it was seized on and widely reported and just stuck there.
To people who don't eat and drink policy detail, most voters/ non voters - that stayed in their minds.

Compared with the content of the Twitter thread link...( hang on, I'll go and look for a relevant passage to quote... ) editing coming up..

This'll do :

'Basically, whilst we have been tinkering around the edges, there has been a full blown culture war raging against us in a pincer movement.'

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:01 pm

citizenJA wrote:I think gilsey's post on yesterday's thread here regarding the incongruity of voters rebelling against governmental leadership by voting for the same government is worth re-reading. The linked quote suggests the voter didn't realise which party was in government. Willow904's response helped make some sense of it but I'm staggered it's possible convincing some a different party were in government.

I was shocked that a lot of people think that the government and Parliament is the same thing.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:05 pm

Hi citizenJA.

There is, of course, another, far more depressing, explanation. That the Tory tactic was to basically admit that Tory governments deliberately target Labour held areas with bigger cuts than Tory held areas and that as long as Labour had someone as useless as Corbyn in charge who could never get elected the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP. The fact a Tory majority government and crash out Brexit will result in such a smaller overall pie, that having a bigger slice will be barely worth having is something that eluded enough voters to tip the seat the Tories' way, alongside the more understandable, though equally delusional, desire to "get Brexit done".

It was easy to see that these voters were targeted with a specific message not seen by the rest of us, but it's taken me a little longer to get the gist of what that message was. It will have been phrased differently from what I have put above but I suspect that is the essence of what a combination of messages probably added up to.

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:09 pm

On a day when the conservatives are running with the utter absurdity that the BBC are biased against them, Labour could have done much much better with a dispassionate forensic response instead of this headline bleating.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:10 pm

Add to that the unfortunate crapness of several long standing Labour councils, and you can certainly see how the above would have been a winning message. Sadly.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:15 pm

Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.

There is, of course, another, far more depressing, explanation. That the Tory tactic was to basically admit that Tory governments deliberately target Labour held areas with bigger cuts than Tory held areas and that as long as Labour had someone as useless as Corbyn in charge who could never get elected the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP. The fact a Tory majority government and crash out Brexit will result in such a smaller overall pie, that having a bigger slice will be barely worth having is something that eluded enough voters to tip the seat the Tories' way, alongside the more understandable, though equally delusional, desire to "get Brexit done".

It was easy to see that these voters were targeted with a specific message not seen by the rest of us, but it's taken me a little longer to get the gist of what that message was. It will have been phrased differently from what I have put above but I suspect that is the essence of what a combination of messages probably added up to.

You may have already read these

Articles from 'The Conversation'

UK election 2019: public resistance to factchecking

Conspiracy theories: how belief is rooted in evolution – not ignorance

link below

https://theconversation.com/uk/?utm_med ... nversation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:29 pm

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... ty-impact/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was Farage the midwife delivering Johnson’s victory? The Brexit Party and the size of the Conservative majority

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:43 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Add to that the unfortunate crapness of several long standing Labour councils, and you can certainly see how the above would have been a winning message. Sadly.

These are the nuts and bolts that need looking at. How Labour performs at all levels, rather than just at the top. Doing a good job locally, making a practical difference in people's lives, however small.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:44 pm

Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.

There is, of course, another, far more depressing, explanation. That the Tory tactic was to basically admit that Tory governments deliberately target Labour held areas with bigger cuts than Tory held areas and that as long as Labour had someone as useless as Corbyn in charge who could never get elected the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP. The fact a Tory majority government and crash out Brexit will result in such a smaller overall pie, that having a bigger slice will be barely worth having is something that eluded enough voters to tip the seat the Tories' way, alongside the more understandable, though equally delusional, desire to "get Brexit done".

It was easy to see that these voters were targeted with a specific message not seen by the rest of us, but it's taken me a little longer to get the gist of what that message was. It will have been phrased differently from what I have put above but I suspect that is the essence of what a combination of messages probably added up to.

The Tory message here was in the West Midlands was 'Getting Brexit Done'.

Constituents in Labour-held areas believing after nine years of Tory governments decimating their local authority budgets by voting Tory their area will receive more resources because 'Corbyn is useless' is tied with being mistaken about which party has been in government for nine years as a depressing explanation for the GE results.

Hypothetically speaking, if some members of my community received money for their Tory vote, I'd be depressed but at least it'd be rational choice, an illegal and corrupt choice, but rational. Believing Tory promises of good things after the last decade and the Tory governments' records prior that is irrational, depressing and I've still got to figure out where to go from here.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:48 pm

Lost Soul wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I think gilsey's post on yesterday's thread here regarding the incongruity of voters rebelling against governmental leadership by voting for the same government is worth re-reading. The linked quote suggests the voter didn't realise which party was in government. Willow904's response helped make some sense of it but I'm staggered it's possible convincing some a different party were in government.
I was shocked that a lot of people think that the government and Parliament is the same thing.

A lot of resources go into maintaining ignorance. The Tory party don't have a history of good things recommending support of their party for most people.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:55 pm

Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Add to that the unfortunate crapness of several long standing Labour councils, and you can certainly see how the above would have been a winning message. Sadly.
These are the nuts and bolts that need looking at. How Labour performs at all levels, rather than just at the top. Doing a good job locally, making a practical difference in people's lives, however small.

Our local council is a coalition with almost equal numbers of Labour, Tory and Independent Councillors. The configuration has been that way, more or less, for at least ten years.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:56 pm

Lost Soul wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.

There is, of course, another, far more depressing, explanation. That the Tory tactic was to basically admit that Tory governments deliberately target Labour held areas with bigger cuts than Tory held areas and that as long as Labour had someone as useless as Corbyn in charge who could never get elected the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP. The fact a Tory majority government and crash out Brexit will result in such a smaller overall pie, that having a bigger slice will be barely worth having is something that eluded enough voters to tip the seat the Tories' way, alongside the more understandable, though equally delusional, desire to "get Brexit done".

It was easy to see that these voters were targeted with a specific message not seen by the rest of us, but it's taken me a little longer to get the gist of what that message was. It will have been phrased differently from what I have put above but I suspect that is the essence of what a combination of messages probably added up to.

You may have already read these

Articles from 'The Conversation'

UK election 2019: public resistance to factchecking

Conspiracy theories: how belief is rooted in evolution – not ignorance

link below

https://theconversation.com/uk/?utm_med ... nversation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for this, I'd not seen it prior writing about ignorance. I'll read it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 1:06 pm

Unscrupulous organisations can say and do what they want; if they've resources enough, they can buy something passing for respectability. How do honourable organisations fight that?

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 1:15 pm

Lost Soul wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.

You may have already read these

Articles from 'The Conversation'

UK election 2019: public resistance to factchecking

Conspiracy theories: how belief is rooted in evolution – not ignorance

link below

https://theconversation.com/uk/?utm_med ... nversation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On fact-checking :-- Labour's claim that a US FTA would cost the NHS £500m a week sounded very wild to me !

On a related reality -check the compensation to Waspi women appeared to be making up policy on the hoof , ex from the NS --

""However, Labour confirmed for this report that the compensation payouts will be treated as state pension income for tax and benefits purposes. This means that women born in the 1950s who currently receive benefits such as pension credit will have them cut in response to their compensation payouts — leaving them little or no better off as a result. Meanwhile, higher-income women will have their compensation subjected to income tax, but will still gain substantially.

Tom Waters, a research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says that “women who would benefit from this policy are less likely to be towards the bottom of the income distribution — about 16 per cent of them are in the bottom fifth — and they’re more likely to be around the middle. ...""

If the above is correct there was a certain amount of 'giving with one hand , and taking back with the other ' ?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:08 pm

adam wrote:On a day when the conservatives are running with the utter absurdity that the BBC are biased against them, Labour could have done much much better with a dispassionate forensic response instead of this headline bleating.

Yes.

I think this would be excellent advice for those thinking about the next leader too, we're not going to be talking about public services and child poverty, BJ's going to do just enough to keep those things out of the news.

Labour need someone who can oppose his agenda now. FTAs with the EU and or the US, nasty tinkering at the HO and DFiD, shaking up the civil service, boundary reforms, Scotland. Page 48 of the manifesto. We know BJ only does broad brush, Labour need someone to do the detail. At this point I think 'vision' isn't really going to help much. I expect this is not a widely held view in the party. May not be here either.

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:11 pm

gilsey wrote:
adam wrote:On a day when the conservatives are running with the utter absurdity that the BBC are biased against them, Labour could have done much much better with a dispassionate forensic response instead of this headline bleating.
Yes.

I think this would be excellent advice for those thinking about the next leader too, we're not going to be talking about public services and child poverty, BJ's going to do just enough to keep those things out of the news.

Labour need someone who can oppose his agenda now. FTAs with the EU and or the US, nasty tinkering at the HO and DFiD, shaking up the civil service, boundary reforms, Scotland. Page 48 of the manifesto. We know BJ only does broad brush, Labour need someone to do the detail. At this point I think 'vision' isn't really going to help much. I expect this is not a widely held view in the party. May not be here either.

The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:16 pm

I saw this comment today which I agree with, but what struck me most was how much they'd managed to fit into these few words, it would take me half a page to say the same thing.

Heather Parry
@HeatherParryUK
The success of the right wing media and the propaganda campaigns of the Conservatives & UKIP in the last while has been convincing Northerners that a fully costed, workable, radical manifesto that would save their regions was untenable—and magical Brexit would save them instead.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edited to include the thread link, there's quite a bit more.

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:19 pm

gilsey wrote:I saw this comment today which I agree with, but what struck me most was how much they'd managed to fit into these few words, it would take me half a page to say the same thing.

Heather Parry
@HeatherParryUK
The success of the right wing media and the propaganda campaigns of the Conservatives & UKIP in the last while has been convincing Northerners that a fully costed, workable, radical manifesto that would save their regions was untenable—and magical Brexit would save them instead.

I was going to come back to my post and add that the other problem with reason is that you can't reason people out of positions that they haven't reasoned themselves into.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:23 pm

adam wrote:
gilsey wrote:
adam wrote:On a day when the conservatives are running with the utter absurdity that the BBC are biased against them, Labour could have done much much better with a dispassionate forensic response instead of this headline bleating.
Yes.

I think this would be excellent advice for those thinking about the next leader too, we're not going to be talking about public services and child poverty, BJ's going to do just enough to keep those things out of the news.

Labour need someone who can oppose his agenda now. FTAs with the EU and or the US, nasty tinkering at the HO and DFiD, shaking up the civil service, boundary reforms, Scotland. Page 48 of the manifesto. We know BJ only does broad brush, Labour need someone to do the detail. At this point I think 'vision' isn't really going to help much. I expect this is not a widely held view in the party. May not be here either.
The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.

All this, if I thought grasp of detail was what really mattered there is no doubt I would be supporting Starmer as next leader (London seat or not)

However, I don't think that it is. We need someone who can connect to those seduced by "post truth" politics.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:23 pm

adam wrote:The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.

You're right, but I don't see a viable alternative until much nearer the next election.

Labour have got so much flak for 'not opposing'.
One of my top 3 reasons why Labour lost is that they've got scruples, the tories haven't, and the MSM won't call it out.
I don't want the first part of that to change, so imo they should do the right thing even if nobody cares, while we await 'events'.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:27 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:We need someone who can connect to those seduced by "post truth" politics.

Elect that someone to leadership now and they'll be trashed by the media long before 2024. IMO.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:33 pm

Willow904 wrote:the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP.

Very well put.

There are people who think this could actually lead BJ towards soft brexit. I think they're very foolish for indulging Hope.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:44 pm

I wouldn't exactly "hope" for that, but given that as we know many see our formally leaving the EU at the end of January as "GETTING BREXIT DONE" it would not be a massive surprise to see some Tory MPs - if not the PM himself - becoming rather more pragmatic once that has occurred.

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 2:47 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I wouldn't exactly "hope" for that, but given that as we know many see our formally leaving the EU at the end of January as "GETTING BREXIT DONE" it would not be a massive surprise to see some Tory MPs - if not the PM himself - becoming rather more pragmatic once that has occurred.

They haven't been in any way at all pragmatic about how the nature of a future relationship might feed into the WA, and they have not been in any way at all pragmatic about what might be achievable in an FTA negotiation, nor in how long it might take. I know that the point of having such a bullshitter as Johnson in charge is that he could do almost anything, but everything he has done so far suggests that there is really no pragmatism there.

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 3:10 pm

How Labour went from near-breakthrough in 2017 to disaster in 2019

Some early analysis from Datapraxis suggests that nearly half of the Labour seat losses could be attributed to losing more remainers to other parties than the size of the Tory majority in leave seats.

And from the issues we've just been talking about...

Displaying precisely the message discipline that Labour lacked, the Conservatives’ offer of 20,000 more police officers, 50,000 more nurses, and 40 new hospitals was judged more believable, even if each false claim could be easily debunked

So, do you need to tell clear lies rather than complicated truths?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 3:27 pm

No, you have to tell people what they want to hear. They already wanted to vote Tory, the nurses and hospitals was just to help them feel OK about it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 3:32 pm

gilsey wrote:
adam wrote:The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.
You're right, but I don't see a viable alternative until much nearer the next election.

Labour have got so much flak for 'not opposing'.
One of my top 3 reasons why Labour lost is that they've got scruples, the tories haven't, and the MSM won't call it out.
I don't want the first part of that to change, so imo they should do the right thing even if nobody cares, while we await 'events'.

How about Labour get peoples' positive attention somewhere somehow
Out perform Tories on the stage, be dramatic
Turn the Labour party into something people love, admire, respect
Labour as a organisation bringing people together daily, consistently, not one-offs
People having fun together, outdoor civic lessons, teaching what isn't taught in classrooms
Tory government might be there for years, that's time for us all to get to know one another
There's nothing else

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 3:36 pm

gilsey wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:We need someone who can connect to those seduced by "post truth" politics.
Elect that someone to leadership now and they'll be trashed by the media long before 2024. IMO.

That's why I'm all for a more lateral organisation right now. Don't have one leader. A series of administrative leads for short periods of time regularly changing.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 3:42 pm

Willow904 wrote:No, you have to tell people what they want to hear. They already wanted to vote Tory, the nurses and hospitals was just to help them feel OK about it.

(cJA bold)
What the hell for? Why? What was so compelling?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 3:52 pm

be ethical and bewitching

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 3:55 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:No, you have to tell people what they want to hear. They already wanted to vote Tory, the nurses and hospitals was just to help them feel OK about it.
(cJA bold)
What the hell for? Why? What was so compelling?

Brexit.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 4:02 pm

Which the right wing press has been carefully laying the groundwork for over the past 25 years. A steady drip, drip of anti-EU rhetoric that has gotten into hearts and gotten into minds as a steady low hum of displaced blame and discontent ready to be pumped up to a fevered crescendo at the precise moment it's most useful for the self-serving Tory agenda. It's a blunt tool, opportunistically used, on this occasion to great success, but not inevitably so.

AFinch · Post by **AFinch** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 4:43 pm

Hi

Very unusual for me to post here at this time on a monday.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election

I generally find Tom Kibasi both intelligent and decent.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 5:26 pm

AFinch wrote:Hi

Very unusual for me to post here at this time on a monday.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election

I generally find Tom Kibasi both intelligent and decent.

I think it's a very insightful and fair reading of what happened. And as to going forwards, I very much agree with this:

The party needs a leader of stature

A "titan" was the actual word I used, but this was essentially my take too. Right now is too dangerous a moment to entrust the Labour party to an "up and coming", however promising. We need someone with experience, if not directly in proper political roles, at least in the world more generally. Much as I loved Ed, the SpAd criticism wasn't entirely unfair. Although the new leader needs to be supportive of the move to the left, a Corbyn/McDonnell protegy is the last thing Labour needs, though I suspect that's what Labour will get.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 5:40 pm

Willow904 wrote:
AFinch wrote:Hi
Very unusual for me to post here at this time on a monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election
I generally find Tom Kibasi both intelligent and decent.
I think it's a very insightful and fair reading of what happened. And as to going forwards, I very much agree with this:
The party needs a leader of stature
A "titan" was the actual word I used, but this was essentially my take too. Right now is too dangerous a moment to entrust the Labour party to an "up and coming", however promising. We need someone with experience, if not directly in proper political roles, at least in the world more generally. Much as I loved Ed, the SpAd criticism wasn't entirely unfair. Although the new leader needs to be supportive of the move to the left, a Corbyn/McDonnell protegy is the last thing Labour needs, though I suspect that's what Labour will get.

Do you have someone in mind?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 5:44 pm

@Willow904
The rotating administrative lead in lieu of one party leader isn't a good idea then?
I'm not attached to it; it was only an idea.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 5:48 pm

float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, the hand can't touch what the eye don't see

- adapted quote from Muhammad Ali

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 5:48 pm

be irrationally happy in the face of irrationally hostile

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 5:50 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
AFinch wrote:Hi
Very unusual for me to post here at this time on a monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election
I generally find Tom Kibasi both intelligent and decent.
I think it's a very insightful and fair reading of what happened. And as to going forwards, I very much agree with this:
The party needs a leader of stature
A "titan" was the actual word I used, but this was essentially my take too. Right now is too dangerous a moment to entrust the Labour party to an "up and coming", however promising. We need someone with experience, if not directly in proper political roles, at least in the world more generally. Much as I loved Ed, the SpAd criticism wasn't entirely unfair. Although the new leader needs to be supportive of the move to the left, a Corbyn/McDonnell protegy is the last thing Labour needs, though I suspect that's what Labour will get.
Do you have someone in mind?

I'm not sure there even is anyone, tbh. They'd be leaping out if there were, yet the runners and riders so far aren't very convincing. I like Keir Starmer, but I'm unsure if he's quite right. If he puts himself up for the role it will be interesting to see how he comes across, a definite maybe. I also like Angela Rayner, but she hasn't enough experience, I think. The rumour is she will go for deputy which I think she'd be very good at. Other than that....I don't know.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 6:27 pm

Rayner hasn't been an MP a long time. She's worked in other organisations prior becoming an MP.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 6:36 pm

citizenJA wrote:be ethical and bewitching

On it

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 6:41 pm

I’d be looking at this as a recruitment thing I’m afraid - looking at people like effective and charismatic CEO of a big badass charity with experience in making stuff happen (like MSF or something), and used to dealing with more extreme versions of reality.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 16 Dec, 2019 6:42 pm

I don’t know anything about MSF’s leadership I should add, but someone leading an organization like that effectively, must have the kind of gravitas and real world experience we need.

(PTO)