I disagree.

No, there is another.

Her heart's in the right place, but I don't think she has the experience or the political savvy to be PM. She'd be a decent opposition to a Johnson government, she'd be an excellent DPM, but I worry that a Phillips premiership could be a road to hell paved with good intentions.

I still fancy the pants off her, mind.

>>87242
She's a TERF.

>>87350
So's your mum.

>>87350
Let's not forget "Until I get what I want, I don't give a toss about tackling the high male-centric rate of suicide" or words to that effect.

Keir Starmer or nothing, thanks.

I like RLB.

I saw a comment about her the other day which said she's the female equivalent of David Lammy. Good at calling out and fighting sexism, but has a bad habit of seeing sexism when it isn't there just so she's got something to be shouting about.

I've had a look on a few Momentum type pages. They seem to hate her because:-

- She's Rupert Murdoch's bitch.
- She's a red Tory.
- She gets along with Rees-Mogg.

>>87350
I saw a trans guy tweet that, in a meeting he was in with her and his cis female friends, they asked about MP selections and she said it was heavily biased towards Eton-educated men, but turned to the trans guy and said “you don’t have a uterus so you’d be fine”. And then everyone sat there in awkward silence.

She is TERFy and SWERFy and Blairy and even more uncharismatic than Corbyn and I really hope she doesn't win.

>>88616

Close political association with Murdoch is absolutely valid grounds for criticism. We haven't had a party in power not backed by the Murdoch press for decades.

David Yellend, former editor of the Sun, said during the Leveson Inquiry:
>"All Murdoch editors, what they do is this: they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Rupert says but you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that something has happened and think: what would Rupert think about this? It's like a mantra inside your head, it's like a prism. You look at the world through Rupert's eyes."

Criticism of the structure of media in the UK has been voiced by many journalists, arguably of quite different political backgrounds. Take what Peter Oborne says about The Telegraph and the BBC: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/

The same problem also exists for non-Murdoch papers (see Jonathan Cook on The Guardian) and ties into a broader problem about government sourcing and concentration of media ownership.

By the way, paraphrasing others to make the argument sound hyperbolic is dishonest. If people do not support Jess Phillips because they disagree with her centrist economic policies, that is also valid.

I know plenty of people complain about Labour taking an explicitly socialist stance, but if Labour sacrifices its socialism in favour of creating an 'electable' appearance all we'll get is plastic politicians we can't trust and tepid campaigns.

Labour membership surged thanks to Corbyn and their honest and (for Britain) radical campaign was welcomed enthusiastically by the party. If the try to shove another neolib in the top spot all those people will just walk away, and I don't think Labour can win without them.

Neolibs just need to fuck off. Liberalism is either dead or dying and if people in power don't stop stepping in socialism's way we're just going to get fascism and it'll suck.

>>88619

>Close political association with Murdoch is absolutely valid grounds for criticism. We haven't had a party in power not backed by the Murdoch press for decades.

If, as many Momentum supporters claim, it's impossible to get elected without the backing of a corrupt and biased media, then Labour is faced with a stark choice - remain in opposition forever, or learn how to manipulate that media to their advantage and have a chance of actually winning an election. Do you want your pride, or do you want to become the party of government?

>>88621

>Labour membership surged thanks to Corbyn

That's a totally irrelevant metric. Labour's share of the vote collapsed under Corbyn, which is highly relevant.

>If the try to shove another neolib in the top spot all those people will just walk away, and I don't think Labour can win without them.

The Momentum takeover has massively degraded Labour's grassroots capacity, because it drove away experienced and hard-working local campaigners and replaced them with people who rarely go out canvassing or leafleting, but do spend a lot of time on social media telling people to fuck off and join the Tories. Quelle surprise, a large chunk of the electorate did fuck off and join the Tories.

I didn't even really know what Momentum was until everyone started blaming it post-GE. It was just a word I saw written on some Labour propaganda occasionally.

>>88622
>it drove away experienced and hard-working local campaigners
Why didn't they do it separately? There's nothing to stop you canvassing for whomever you feel like. Presumably the people you're talking about were part of the contingent who came up with Momentum and welcomed it into the party in the first place. Maybe they weren't driven off, maybe they figured they'd let the new and enthusiastic people do it for them so they could be lazy and sit this one out.
Either way, I don't remember* seeing you or anyone else warning of this happening beforehand. Equally the electorate who voted for the Tories are also culpable for making their decisions based on the behaviour of some retard on twitter rather than the party maifestos and personal track records. None of this finger-pointing really helps anyone.

*I do expect you to now dig up some pre-GE posts where someone did, I genuinely just don't remember.

>>88622
>If, as many Momentum supporters claim, it's impossible to get elected without the backing of a corrupt and biased media, then Labour is faced with a stark choice - remain in opposition forever, or learn how to manipulate that media to their advantage and have a chance of actually winning an election. Do you want your pride, or do you want to become the party of government?

I don't belong to Momentum, but I've presented some argument (which has nothing to do with Momentum) that the bias exists. So unless you address that, there's really not much reason to continue with that "if".

That aside, these are not the only two options. For one, there is no "manipulating the media to their advantage"; the economic policies of Corbyn's Labour (and other parties, such as Green) run counter to the agenda what the media are, institutionally. The only way to be treated sympathetically by that media is to move party policy towards an increasingly narrow consensus -- either way, we don't get to reach anything outside of neoliberalism.

For two, there are already many people working on media reform and making a considerable impact. With enough popular support the government can be pressured into changing its relationship with the media. That was partly the origin of the Leveson Inquiry, for example.

>>88623

>Presumably the people you're talking about were part of the contingent who came up with Momentum and welcomed it into the party in the first place.

Nope. Momentum is an entryist movement that is substantially at odds with the mainstream of the Labour party pre-Corbyn. A large proportion of the leadership of Momentum were previously members of Militant Tendency, a similar entryist group who were banned from the Labour party in the 1980s.

>Either way, I don't remember* seeing you or anyone else warning of this happening beforehand.

Several Labour MPs were warning that Momentum was an entryist coup by the hard left back in 2015. Momentum spent most of the following years seeking to push centre-left members and MPs out of the party, with no small amount of success.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/68963/momentum-entryists-trying-take-over-labour-claims-tom

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mp-deselection-momentum-nec-vote-conference-a8521141.html

Bookies favourites are between Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer. I don't know where they seem to be getting the information for Keir considering he's not only a bloke from London but also far too closely associated with IIIWW to be viable.

I'm a little angry that the picture of Lisa Nandy in bed with another woman during her university days is so shit.

>>87362
>>88615
If I remember right, she actually pulled faces and laughed when an David Lammy spoke about male suicide in the context of international men's day. Her defence being that, of course, everyday is international men's day.

i.e. should she become leader the electorate will just conclude that she's a cunt.

>>88621
>Liberalism is either dead or dying and if people in power don't stop stepping in socialism's way we're just going to get fascism and it'll suck.

I had no idea that actual Bolsheviks posted on this site. Do you feel like a bit of a hypocrite spouting this while Labour's party line isn't a dictatorship of the proletariat?

>>88621
>If the try to shove another neolib in the top spot all those people will just walk away, and I don't think Labour can win without them.
They won without them before, and on current form they sure as shit aren't winning with them. In our electoral system, you play for the centre ground or you get played. If you aren't electable, you generally don't get elected, and if you don't get elected, all you're doing is screaming from the touchline.

>>88625
Interesting.

>>88625

>Momentum spent most of the following years seeking to push centre-left members and MPs out of the party, with no small amount of success.

Good. Look at how well the Change Party or whatever the fuck it ended up calling itself did to see just how much the public wants centre left MPs. They only had their seats in the first place because they represented Labour. Nobody wants them.

I'm no Momentum fanboy but if you want to find a way to criticise them, you'll have to do better than telling me they rooted out the centrists.

>>88628

>They won without them before, and on current form they sure as shit aren't winning with them

As has been pointed out to you plenty of times by now, this has more to do with social than economic policy. People care more, at the ballot box, about social issues than economic ones, so there's no rational reason for labour to compromise on economic leftism. The public supports that. What it absolutely cannot afford to do is offer the electorate more soft, wishy washy social liberalism.

The voting public doesn't want Tory-lite, when the last ten years of Tory rule have taught them that they can just vote full fat Tory and probably be okay- Because at least the Tories offer a perceived tougher stance on crime, immigration, etc. They'd vote for Lenin himself if he said I'LL LOCK UP EVERY daft militant wog AND THROW AWAY THE KEY.

If your only defence is to point at an election victory from more than two decades ago I really don't know what the fuck to tell you- Would you believe times change? You're getting it all completely backwards.

The problem with Long-Bailey, apart from looking like someone drew glasses on a potato, is that she's already been dubbed 'Wrong-Daily' and that's effective enough to stick.

>>88627

>Bookies favourites are between Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is the runaway favourite.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader

>>88630

If you're arguing that centrism doesn't work for the Labour party, you'll need to explain why a) Blair won the largest Labour majority ever and b) why Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since 1935.

Labour's move to the left is a failed experiment.

>>88633

>If you're arguing that centrism doesn't work for the Labour party, you'll need to explain why

Okay, well, to drastically simplify things:

>a) Blair won the largest Labour majority ever

Because the Tories were shit in 1997 and Blair wasn't socially liberal.

>b) why Labour currently has fewer seats than at any time since 1935.

Because of IIIWW and because Corbyn was socially liberal.

If you even remember the basics of GCSE science classes you'll know that you can't test a hypothesis without isolating a variable. You keep pointing to 1997 and comparing it with last week's election results as if that means fucking anything.

Why can't you be honest and admit that 22 years have passed and the issues people care about have moved on? It's like if I kept trying to tell you hard left Labour is electable because of their landslide in 1945.

>>88634

>I've been digging for ages and now I'm stuck in a big hole
>Stop digging m8
>YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT DIGGING GOT ME INTO THIS HOLE AND BESIDES IT'S JUST THE MURDOCH PRESS

>>88638

I'm the one that posted about the Murdoch press. Different lad. I think I made my point about that.

If centrist Blairites are so great why did the Conservatives knock them out of power in the first place?

>>88642
Because Ed Miliband was a bit weird.

>>88642

Because Labour had their time, and that time was up.

But also because they made the same mistake as the Conservatives in the 90s, and allowed a bland as fuck person to be the successor to an iconic figurehead, at a time when enthusiasm for the incumbent government was very clearly waning.

>>88645
I'd forgotten about ol' Cyclops, what with his terrifying forced smile and bigoted woman comments.

>>88642
Because Brown, and Miliband after him, did absolutely nothing to challenge the Tory narrative that Labour were responsible for the global financial crisis.

>>88645

>allowed a bland as fuck person to be the successor to an iconic figurehead

Ouch, that certainly sounds like it would be damaging.

>at a time when enthusiasm for the incumbent government was very clearly waning.

And why was that?

>>88646

>Brown, and Miliband after him, did absolutely nothing to challenge the Tory narrative that Labour were responsible for the global financial crisis.

And is that still relevant today?

>>88645

The irony is that someone as boring as John Major would have the nous to take some positive action, just to see an uptick in the public mood. He wouldn't care about the background of the beneficiaries, as long as there was an absolute measurable result. Yes, it's boring as fuck politics, but as a voter with Federalist tendencies and worker's rights in mind, i would love to see a stronger nation that works as a whole while considering the needs of the individual devolved regions, and the counties and cultures that comprise them. Every part of this country has great and unique things to offer, and it's worth boasting about the melding of tradition and new culture that has made all such as curries and doner meat pizza things that are British as Fuck. One of these days I will get the TransPennine Express to Scarborough and have a Parmo. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a coherent plan for a United Kingdom that works together like any sort of "powerhouse", which is why I always scoff when I see the idea of a Northern one bandied about.

>>88660
>And is that still relevant today?

Absolutely. The Tories have been given free reign for years to etch into the nations psyche that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy because they're incompetent and they overspend. There is no way that hasn't influenced perceptions of Corbyn's spending plans.

>>88666

So what's to be done about it?

Should Labour challenge that perception and fight the case that there's a credible case against austerity and neo-liberalism? Or should Labour essentially validate that perception by lurching sheepishly towards the same?

>>88666

The Financial Crisis did not happen solely because Labour were shit with money though. It was the consequence of a global problem of Western governments turning a blind eye to the shenanigans of a free-wheeling banking and investment sector that was allowed to run free and throw all caution of what was widely considered prudent economic policy to the wind.

It did not happen because Labour were running out of other people's money, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher.

>>88667

Reframe the argument to focus on growth and productivity, not spending.

Labour's 2019 election campaign was a laundry-list of free stuff and spending promises, but they only briefly mentioned stuff like the National Investment Bank; this disparity only served to reinforce what the Tory party and the tabloid press had been saying for years about Labour. The traditional Labour towns that swung to the Tories didn't see how their sense of pride and community could be restored by more generous handouts, but they were willing to gamble on the bright but vague future offered by Boris's IIIWW.

The big economic problem facing most voters is the cost-of-living squeeze - wages haven't increased in real terms since 2008, but inflation has been steadily ticking up. Promising to increase the minimum wage won't persuade most voters, because they're not on the minimum wage; promising to coerce employers into increasing wages gives the Tories an open goal to attack Labour as being anti-business Marxists.

Labour could have credibly won the economic argument by relentlessly focussing on productivity. "The Tories destroyed manufacturing in this country and gave the bankers free reign to gamble with our livelihoods. Labour wants to make Britain work for working people by investing in real jobs and real industry." A more relatable leader could have positioned themselves as the down-to-earth alternative to an out-of-touch posho who doesn't know how things work in the real world, but Corbyn couldn't carry that off.

If you promise a bunch of spending and then explain what taxes are going to fund it, you don't look economically prudent, you just play into a load of old Tory slogans about tax and spend. If you start with how you're going to grow the economy and then talk about all the things that a more productive economy can afford, it's infinitely more credible.

Labour's campaign lacked clarity and focus, so it ended up looking disorganised and reactive. Boris's simple slogans were reductive, but they very effectively controlled the terms of the debate.

>>88631
Do you have an argument or are you just going to go B-B-BUT THE TORIES all week?

>Would you believe times change?
I would, but I wouldn't be so fucking naïve as to believe that to be the reason for Labour's dire electoral performances since Corbyn took the job.

>>88670

I didn't do any B-B-BUT TORIES if you'd bothered to read, lad.

Calling a Labour centrist Tory Lite is entirely accurate, because the Tories have moved to entirely claim the same socially liberal middle ground as Labour, while still credibly holding the same economic position they've always held.

The old truism is that the Conservatives can always move to the left, but it's very difficult for Labour to move to the right- But that's a flawed viewpoint, because it relies on the assumption that the social and economic left/right are mutually exclusive.

>>88669

I like the sound of this, but at the same time, I wonder how they could do that without falling into the same trap, just using different posturing. "We're going to invest in industry!" "How?" "By erm... Giving it loads of money!" and then the papers slag them off for trying to bribe businesses and create unfair market forces or whatever.

I think at the end of the day we can't get over the issue without ultimately breaking through that taboo that public spending and investment is a bad thing. I think something that nearly works is when you point at the Nordic countries and everyone universally agrees that they're exemplary economies- Then you can pull the tablecloth out underneath them by pointing out the huge levels of taxation and cost of living balances that go hand in hand with it.

>>88671
>I didn't do any B-B-BUT TORIES if you'd bothered to read, lad.
... he says, right before adding
>Calling a Labour centrist Tory Lite is entirely accurate

>>88672

You still haven't got a counter argument though I see.

>>88676
You need to formulate a cogent argument before someone can counter it.

>>88683
That's not actually true though is it? A seriously flawed argument would be all the more easy to counter.

Thornberry is the first one to officially put themselves forward. If she's the answer then you're asking the wrong questions.

>>88685
Flawless and cogent aren't the same thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>>88667
Labours plan was to get the manifesto fully costed by economists (had the backing of 180 prominent economists, if I'm remembering rightly). The problem is most people don't give a shit about that, if enough 'regular people' challenge it with "It'll bankrupt us though!" they'll get scared and side with that rather than read the extensive report because "Those bloody professionals are at it again with their facts and figures and degrees and whatnot"

That added to the fact 'regular people' get most of their opinions from media owned by the ruling class or "Dave at work who seems to know a lot about politics" "Dave at work who presents a lot of biased opinions as fact"

Labour needed to do more than just tout professionals opinions, brandishing them like paper armour against fire breathing dragons, they needed to build that case, and then lay it out in simple terms. "Our renationalisation plan would pay themselves off in under 10 years, after that the income is just gravy and we can pay off the rest of our debt steadily (or give you free/cheaper train travel/electricity/water/etc.)"

>>88701
The problem with Labour's "fully costed" manifesto is that:-

- Almost immediately after it is launched the IFS will review it and say the plans aren't credible.
- The day after it was launched they appended on a pledge to giveaway £58billion to WASPI women that they'd initially forgotten about.
- Corbyn was interviewed admitting that it wouldn't just be the top 5% of earners paying for it all.
- The sheer number of spending plans made voters sceptical and canvassers felt they had too many to go through on doorsteps.
- The way the pledges were framed. John McDonnell even warned against how Labour were campaigning it (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leaders-gangster-aides-stopped-john-mcdonnell-rescuing-campaign-ftnppxd5z).
- People may be interested in a redistribution of wealth, but they don't subscribe to Momentum's combative class war. It came off as anti-business and the politics of envy rather than a positive message to get behind.

>>88703
It was credible and it would be better for the country

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/is-labours-economic-plan-credible.html

>>88703
I think the turning point was making Broadband free. That seemed to be the main jump on for the FREE STUFF FROM LABOUR crowd.

>>88704
General election 2019: Tory and Labour spending plans 'not credible' - IFS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

It's the IFS analysis that makes the news, though.

Labour claims about savings under their policies are not credible

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/labour-claims-about-savings-under-their-policies-are-not-credible/

>>88703
>Corbyn was interviewed admitting that it wouldn't just be the top 5% of earners paying for it all.

Wasn't that about ending tax breaks for married couples, or something? The top 5% thing was about income tax only.

>>88707
The marriage allowance was only for couples where one was a basic rate taxpayer and the other had income that didn't exceed the personal allowance. It was claimed a lot by couples where one was working whilst the other raised their children or cared for elderly relatives.

Those worst affected by Corbyn's proposals would have been small business owners who drew most of their income as dividends.

Stalinist takes charge of Rebecca Long Bailey’s Labour leadership campaign

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stalinist-takes-charge-of-rebecca-long-baileys-labour-leadership-campaign-q8pkp9qc6

Welp.

>>88743
Please post a screen cap, paywalllad.

>>88744
You get a small number of articles per week for free if you register. Anyway, it's repeated almost verbatim in The Mail:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7816009/Rebecca-Long-Bailey-appoints-self-proclaimed-Stalinist.html

I guess it confirms what would obviously happen anyway; any misstep by Wrong-Daily will be seized on by the media.

>>88745
So it's literally nothing and for some reason they aren't publishing the photo in question?

>>88746
I'd say the issue was more him being a self-declared Stalinist, but that's par for the course with Seumas still knocking around.

>>88747
I'm a bonehead, I didn't even realise that was the photo, apologies.

Don't fuck this, Jess.

>>88631
>The voting public doesn't want Tory-lite

You are aware that the only time Labour got in power in the last 40 years was because they became 'Tory-lite'?

>Speaking to the M.E.N., contender Ms Long Bailey said: “They say your experiences shape who you are and mine certainly have. I was born in Old Trafford to Irish parents and grew up locally. My Dad, Jimmy, worked on the Salford Docks and I grew up watching him worrying when round after round of redundancies were inflicted on the Docks.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rebecca-long-bailey-replace-hazel-7296137

Rebecca Long-Bailey was born 22 September 1979.
Salford docks closed 1982.

Needless to say, the press have picked up on her telling porkies to show that she has working class credentials.

>>88747

>I'd say the issue was more him being a self-declared Stalinist


The only genocidist who's still somehow hip to follow.

Accepted belief among historians is that Stalin is responsible for more deaths of ethnic minorities than Hitler. In the Ukraine Famine alone, up to five million people died from starvation.

https://news.stanford.edu/2010/09/23/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310/

It would then only be fair if EDL supporters got to openly call themselves Hitlerists without having to fear repercussions.

>>88752

>Hitlerists without having to fear repercussions.

Hitler was a vegetarian, built the autobaun gave us the Volkswagen. And pulled Germany out of debt into a period of prosterity. He's okay in my book if you cherry pick the way people do with historical figures they like.

>>88752
Stalin actually had terrible skin. That picture has been doctored.

I suppose changing your name from Ioseb Jughashvili to Joe Steel isn't that different from Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to Tommy Robinson, come to think of it.

Do we really have to play the "who was more evil?" game with Hitler and fucking Stalin? That's possibly the daftest debate in the history of human civilisation.

>>88753

So you're saying, as long as someone has a tenable utopian vision, then what's a few million dead minorities here and there along the way?

>>88758
No he isn't saying that at all.

>>88758

It's staggering that you were able to read that and come to that conclusion. Did you just not read the whole post? It's only three sentences.

Ironic that you lot are missing the point about cunts being cunts on a thread praising Jess Phillips. She's not the progressive figure Labour needs, just another derisive, divisive foghorn.

Fairly comprehensive write-up here for those of you still intent on sipping the Kool-Aid:
https://gal-dem.com/heres-why-weve-got-no-time-for-jess-phillips/

>>88761
Can't you just not lie? Why are you pretending to think "she's not the progressive figure Labour needs"? Just say what you actually think which is probably the total opposite, you weird, transparently untruthful, oddball. It's very easy to tell when people are doing this strange fake opinion thing on .gs because there are only three of us here, so it sticks out like a sore thumb when people chat shit.

>>88761

A leader who annoys "an online and print publication committed to sharing perspectives from women and non-binary people of colour" is almost certain to have more electoral appeal than a leader who is lauded by them.

It's impossible to avoid being divisive, because we're a massively divided nation; the question is who you want to appeal to and who you're willing to alienate in the process. Corbyn has proven that he has very strong appeal for a small minority of the electorate while alienating the vast majority. That's not a winning strategy. Frankly, it doesn't matter what the readers of Gal Dem think, because they're a demographic rounding error.

>>88761
tl;dr version: Blair took us into Iraq, so going towards the centre is bad. Anyone who wants to control immigration is bad. Jess Phillips is bad because she's spoken out about Asian men grooming white children and also something about sex workers and trannies.

Most BAME people I know want immigration reduced. I don't know where they've got this notion that being non-white automatically means you oppose any controls on immigration.

>>88764
Oh, and the cardinal sin of not giving unwavering blind devotion to Jeremy "worst general election result since 1935" Corbyn.

>>88763

>because we're a massively divided nation

Isn't that true for every democratic country that ever was. The adage "We're such a divided country" has certainly been used for as long as I have been alive.


I maintain that true unity can only come about in communism or fascism, with a firm and resolute deep state that watches over what people say and think at every level, and which is prepared to use any repressive means necessary to dictate public opinion and maintain its own power. And even then, most people will only parrot official government propaganda for fear of being neutralised if they don't.

Hope I'm not giving you lot any ideas.

>>88767

>Isn't that true for every democratic country that ever was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus

>>88767

The liberal democratic party has been in power in Japan nearly constantly since the mid 50s you can fit the time others parts have had control during into a decade.

Jess is also very self-serving. Remember when MPs were marching in support of the NHS a while back? Jess didn't, because she had a book signing that Saturday. She's always busy promoting her books and attention seeking in general.

Also, she's Rees-Mogg's best mate

>>88769

The Japanese don't seem like a people that would be divided to begin with. From what I have had to do with them, most of the time, it's hard to get any kind of frankly-stated opinion out of them at all.

>>88774
That's a big factor in why they'll release all sorts of crazy bollocks. Market research simply doesn't work there because people are too reserved to say what they really feel, so companies take a scattergun approach to see what actually sticks.

>>88779

That must be true also for their television programmes then.

Or maybe it's just their form of release. Brits get drunk on holiday, the Americans invade sovereign nations, and maybe all the batshit crazy weird stuff has to come from Japan because it's their way of counterbalancing a lifetime spent not sticking out or being in any way noteworthy as an individual.

>>88789
No one had heard of Corbyn, of course, so not like that matters.

>>88789
JESS JESS JESS

>>88790
How did that work out?

>>88792
One of the many reasons that Corbyn's leadership lost the election for Labour, Mr. Trite Moron, wasn't that no-one had heard of him when he was elected.

Long-Bailey has finally thrown her hat into the ring, with Rayner her choice for deputy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/29/rebecca-long-bailey-labour-party-britain

>Keir Starmer has emerged as an early frontrunner in the Labour leadership race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn after a poll of members suggested he was the first choice in all regions of the UK, age groups and social classes.

>Polling by YouGov for the Party Members Project put Starmer as winning with a 61% vote share to 39% for the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long Bailey, in the last round. Jess Phillips, the chair of the women’s parliamentary Labour party, who has yet to declare if she is running, was the third most popular choice among members, who were surveyed between 20 and 30 December.

>The results at this preliminary stage suggest that the winner is unlikely to come from the left of the party, according to Prof Tim Bale of Queen Mary University of London, who jointly ran the poll with the University of Sussex.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/01/poll-of-labour-members-suggests-keir-starmer-is-first-choice

>>88826
Oh, dog.

>>88826

Good.

Put someone like Kier Starmer up against a clown like BoJo in an election and it should be an easy win. Sad to say it but he just looks and sounds like a leader. I can picture people voting for him.

The rest of them are absolute no hopers on a magnitude several times greater than Corbyn. At least Corbyn had experience and principles on his side. These lot are not just out of touch lib-lefties, but empty careerist ones at that.

Style isn't everything but why do we pretend it's not important?

It has a huge role to play and people that look and act like leaders can bring people with them, which is half of the battle. I hate the pretence that we have to pretend that if you don't put on a suit and tie or have a scruffy beard then you're more 'real' than somebody who has made the effort.

By the way Jess Phillips would be an excellent choice but I fear the Labour membership will instead pick a bad one.

>>88828

Starmer is a boring bastard. Unless Boris catastrophically fucks up the next five years, he'll get hammered. Doesn't matter what his policies are, doesn't matter how clever he is, no swing voter will pay attention for long enough to listen to him.

He's less shit than RLB, but that's not exactly hard.

>>88831

>Unless Boris catastrophically fucks up the next five years

I'm about 70% certain he will, to be fair. Up til this point he's had "Get IIIWW Done (tm)" on his side, but afterwards what does he have?

Indeed, what will he have when he doesn't even Get IIIWW Done (tm) because the talks invariably end up going on for years and years despite anyone's best intention? That's still a very real outcome, and people will loathe him for breaking that one, single, solitary, exclusive reason thy elected him.

>>88832

>but afterwards what does he have?

Thanks to a decade of brutal austerity, he can radically improve public services by just moderately loosening the purse strings.

>what will he have when he doesn't even Get IIIWW Done (tm) because the talks invariably end up going on for years and years despite anyone's best intention?

If we do actually leave, everything else will be a boring technicality in the minds of most IIIWWeers. Most of the electorate still don't really understand how any of this stuff actually works. Interminable trade negotiations just aren't as newsworthy as the ticking time bomb of no-deal and A50 extensions. With a bit of PR savvy (which Bozza clearly possesses), a decade of excruciating trade talks could be more-or-less swept under the carpet, simply because they're too slow, boring and complicated to make for good headlines.

>>88833 everything else will be a boring technicality in the minds of most IIIWWeers.

It will also all be the fault of foreigners being spiteful (EU deals) and unreasonable (RoW), since trade deals are easy to get done(tm).

>>88831
>Starmer is a boring bastard. Unless Boris catastrophically fucks up the next five years, he'll get hammered. Doesn't matter what his policies are, doesn't matter how clever he is, no swing voter will pay attention for long enough to listen to him.

That's going to happen regardless of who is leader. The majority is simply too large to overturn in five years, particularly is Boris keeps playing to the centre ground with things like his minimum wage rise and pledges to the police and NHS.

>>88835

>That's going to happen regardless of who is leader. The majority is simply too large to overturn in five years

>>88836
The Tories had a majority of 21 in 1992 and were on a downward trend. Their majority in 2019 was 80. The landslide of 1997 was a lot more than five years in the making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0hXgse0uBY

She's about as inspiring as a toenail clipping.

>>88843
Who do you like?