RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:Starmer is in it to win it:

Starmer is the only one who looks like a statesman, and from that video it looks like he has solid left wing credentials to boot.

We can unify around the radical is a nice idea, though I think I prefer the line on the field free market, and of course the idea Keir never sought to take any credit is nicely juxtaposed with him being praised for those actions he never sought credit for in a video launching a leadership campaign. It's not maybe a bad first attempt as such communications go, but he could use a subtler touch

Mellsblue wrote:Starmer is in it to win it:

Thought it twere an old 'ovis advert. But he's not the best thing since sliced bread, tho possibly the best Labour have got.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The first part answers the second.

Not really. Does it mean you do whatever people tell you they want? What do you do if you think they're wrong? What do you do if different people want different things?

Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Not really. Does it mean you do whatever people tell you they want? What do you do if you think they're wrong? What do you do if different people want different things?

Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

Nothing in there for the middle classes either really, and they cannot win power by only talking to the working class, though I would agree they've taken the working class for granted for far too long

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

If you think there was nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes then you haven't read it.

But I'm not here to argue about the contents of the manifesto. My point is that statements like "we should have listened more" and "we will listen more" are largely content-free. It's very easy to say it, and perhaps get people to think "if they listen to me, they'll do what I want". But they can't do what everyone wants - it's impossible. So these kinds of statements are PR - they have no substance.

If they said "the people were asking for X - we failed them because X wasn't in the manifesto - but I am promising X now", then that would be honest.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

If you think there was nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes then you haven't read it.

But I'm not here to argue about the contents of the manifesto. My point is that statements like "we should have listened more" and "we will listen more" are largely content-free. It's very easy to say it, and perhaps get people to think "if they listen to me, they'll do what I want". But they can't do what everyone wants - it's impossible. So these kinds of statements are PR - they have no substance.

If they said "the people were asking for X - we failed them because X wasn't in the manifesto - but I am promising X now", then that would be honest.

As I said ‘at least nothing in the headlines’ and ‘their priorities far too down the list’. That said, no I didn’t read the Labour manifesto but I didn’t read my kids’ letters to Santa, either. If I’m being completely honest, I didn’t read any manifestos other than the Yorkshire Party, wishy washy as it was, as all of the parties’ leaders and leadership teams are massively flawed. I could’ve voted for the YP until I realised who their candidate was...the man is a complete waste of space. The Conservatives seem to be following through on my reasons that I could’ve voted for the YP - investment in poor northern and midlands areas and devolution - so I’m happy.

I agree that you can’t be all things to all men but you can at least pretend to treat all men relatively equally. The northern working class knew/believed they were miles behind ideological priorities.
I agree there needs to be more meat on the bone but I’m sure that will come during the campaign.
This isn’t really meant to be a critique of the runners and riders, merely the point that listening to those voters you lost is a bloody good way to start any debrief, even more so when they’ve voted for you for generations, and seems to be missing from the process so far.

Fist things first. You have to get the public to believe you are credible. That you can govern sensibly, that you are serious and competent. Are you a prospective PM and government that we can trust (you'll hear this word a lot)
Labour's manifesto was brimming with policies - many of them perfectly decent - but that doesnt mean much if the perception of you is one of a hamfisted bungler devoid of leadership quality. Can you deliver even half of what you are offering? If the suspicion is that you can't, you are on an uphill slog all the way.
Starmer, Phillips and Nandy at least recognise this and are at least asking the right kind of questions.

fivepointer wrote:Fist things first. You have to get the public to believe you are credible. That you can govern sensibly, that you are serious and competent. Are you a prospective PM and government that we can trust (you'll hear this word a lot)
Labour's manifesto was brimming with policies - many of them perfectly decent - but that doesnt mean much if the perception of you is one of a hamfisted bungler devoid of leadership quality. Can you deliver even half of what you are offering? If the suspicion is that you can't, you are on an uphill slog all the way.
Starmer, Phillips and Nandy at least recognise this and are at least asking the right kind of questions.

RLB launches her campaign in Tribune, alongside another article slagging off Jess Phillips. Its basically 'carry on as we are with me instead of Jeremy. Policies were fine cos I wrote them, just badly presented.'

If I'm hearing RLB correctly they can't be Blue Labour, but if she uses the word green enough then people will not notice they're Red Labour

Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Banquo wrote:Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.

I broadly think electing another loon, doing badly for 2-3 more years, and then electing a sensible moderate is the best way back to power. I'm not sure I can recall anyone doing well after 4-5 years in opposition as a single leader

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.

I broadly think electing another loon, doing badly for 2-3 more years, and then electing a sensible moderate is the best way back to power. I'm not sure I can recall anyone doing well after 4-5 years in opposition as a single leader

I was more thinking about what the PLP would do if RLB and Burgon, McDonnell dream ticket were voted in. Unlikely though.

As you say Starmer might not benefit from getting in this time round- he's also still quite wedded to the policies in the manifesto from what I read/saw.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.

I broadly think electing another loon, doing badly for 2-3 more years, and then electing a sensible moderate is the best way back to power. I'm not sure I can recall anyone doing well after 4-5 years in opposition as a single leader

I was more thinking about what the PLP would do if RLB and Burgon, McDonnell dream ticket were voted in. Unlikely though.

As you say Starmer might not benefit from getting in this time round- he's also still quite wedded to the policies in the manifesto from what I read/saw.

I expect the PLP to do nothing. If they weren't going to change for Brexit or Corbyn why rock the boat now?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I broadly think electing another loon, doing badly for 2-3 more years, and then electing a sensible moderate is the best way back to power. I'm not sure I can recall anyone doing well after 4-5 years in opposition as a single leader

I was more thinking about what the PLP would do if RLB and Burgon, McDonnell dream ticket were voted in. Unlikely though.

As you say Starmer might not benefit from getting in this time round- he's also still quite wedded to the policies in the manifesto from what I read/saw.

I expect the PLP to do nothing. If they weren't going to change for Brexit or Corbyn why rock the boat now?

They did try and unseat Corbyn first chance they had. But then gave up.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.

They use the instant-runoff voting system, so no block votes, each voter lists the candidates in order of preference, at each round a candidate is removed and their voters' next preference gets their votes until someone reaches 50%.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.

They use the instant-runoff voting system, so no block votes, each voter lists the candidates in order of preference, at each round a candidate is removed and their voters' next preference gets their votes until someone reaches 50%.

Does Unison itself get just one vote then, as a nominator? So their backing is merely ‘informIng’’ their Labour Party members considering voting?

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.

They use the instant-runoff voting system, so no block votes, each voter lists the candidates in order of preference, at each round a candidate is removed and their voters' next preference gets their votes until someone reaches 50%.

Does Unison itself get just one vote then, as a nominator? So their backing is merely ‘informIng’’ their Labour Party members considering voting?

Each candidate needs to be nominated by a union or 5% of constituency parties. Beyond that, presumably, Unison will advise its members to vote for its nominated candidate.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: They use the instant-runoff voting system, so no block votes, each voter lists the candidates in order of preference, at each round a candidate is removed and their voters' next preference gets their votes until someone reaches 50%.

Does Unison itself get just one vote then, as a nominator? So their backing is merely ‘informIng’’ their Labour Party members considering voting?

Each candidate needs to be nominated by a union or 5% of constituency parties. Beyond that, presumably, Unison will advise its members to vote for its nominated candidate.

Cheers. Any 'feel' for who will win? Rayner is storming the deputy race with the PLP. Not sure why. other than the lack of visibility of the others or being Burgon.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Does Unison itself get just one vote then, as a nominator? So their backing is merely ‘informIng’’ their Labour Party members considering voting?

Each candidate needs to be nominated by a union or 5% of constituency parties. Beyond that, presumably, Unison will advise its members to vote for its nominated candidate.

Cheers. Any 'feel' for who will win? Rayner is storming the deputy race with the PLP. Not sure why. other than the lack of visibility of the others or being Burgon.

Starmer seems like the favourite from the press, certainly is with betfair...