Sensible discussion on Labour Leadership hopefuls

And now Clive Lewis has stated on the Victoria Derbyshire programme that he "doesn't think the UK needs nuclear weapons and wouldn't push the nuclear button". Words fail me.

I wonder if you know what percentage of the UK want or do not want nuclear weapons Opal.

In response to the information in Urmstongran's last post.

That was an unpleasant and unnecessary remark by that MP, and they should be taken to task about showing loyalty and good manners. I hope that it was not my MP.

Apparently Labour MPs blasted Jeremy Corbyn's 'boring' loyalist Rebecca Long Bailey after she made her opening leadership pitch to the parliamentary party last night, savaging her performance as 'like watching paint dry'.

Words fail me too Opal

I remember Corbyn stating that he didn’t think that convicted Islamic terrorists should necessarily serve their whole prison sentence.

It beggars belief doesn’t it?

And now Clive Lewis has stated on the Victoria Derbyshire programme that he "doesn't think the UK needs nuclear weapons and wouldn't push the nuclear button". Words fail me.

Well, Dinahmo, I think your third reason is a product of your second. It might be news to many people but the entire LP does not live in expensive parts of London.

And it is so ironic. Rather than be apparently patronised by the 'liberal elite' they vote for the 'illiberal elite' that openly despises them...

Is Momentum still very powerful and how much influence will it/they have on the final selection of the leader?

I ask as Starmer seems to be the front runner at the moment yet my impression is that he is possibly the least hard Left of the candidates.

MaizieD Three reasons I think. Firstly, they truly believed everything Johnson said. Secondly, they believed the rw media and thirdly, they don't like being "patronised" by the "liberal elite", ie the Labour politicians who live in expensive parts of London.

Hello all I’ve just joined and have read this thread with interest. Annie I have to say your post @ 10:12 has given me the best laugh I’ve had in ages! ?
My choice for labour leader would have been Caroline Flint. Alas she lost her seat. After that I really don’t have a clue. Certainly not RLB or Jess Philips. Probably Lisa Nandy seems the best of a bad bunch.

Annie. ???!

Listening to SKY News, seems Lisa Nandy impressed the MP’s
at last nights hustings,

Jeremy Corbyn didn’t engage in disciplinary actions with
anti semites .

Anyway I must fly to the lavatory,

growstuff in regard to your post @09:53 today, as a member of the Liberal Democratic Party perhaps you would inform the us what your party would do in regard to such matters as Universal Credit as compared to the Labour Party. After all those policies brought the Lib Dems such success in the recent general election, did they not.

Why do you think the people rejected the LP at this election MaizieD.

A better question might be why did people vote for a party that promised virtually nothing at all?

You really don't get it, do you, Grandad?

Maizie Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I recall, the Labour Party said they would scrap UC, but didn't actually say what they'd replace it with or whether they'd increase the funding for benefits.

The system UC replaced was pretty rubbish too and actually some people are better off with UC than the old system (admittedly not many). Millions has been spent on UC and, rather than replace it, the anomalies need to be sorted and it needs to be better funded.

The Labour Party kept on producing rabbits out of the hat, but I don't think many people believed them. I know that I would have trusted them more if they'd said they were going to set up a review of UC as a matter of urgency. They should also have promised to do something about the Local Housing Allowance, which is actually causing more hardship than almost anything.

The Labour Party gave the impression of not actually understanding how the system works and just wanting to produce a big headline promise.

The rest of the manifesto sounded like pie in the sky too. For example, the promise to abolish student fees wouldn't have appealed to the half of the country who don't go on to higher education and didn't deal with those graduates who already have loans.

Galaxy in regard to your post @07:44 today, you speak of an " authoritarian approach" by a certain section of the Labour Party. In that, I can only believe that you are speaking of persons on the left of the party who have in the last five years reshaped the policies of the Parliamentary Labour Party so as to restore it once again to be in line with the polices of the wider Labour movement.

The above was not carried out by any " authoritarian behaviour", but was brought forward by persons who all were elected into the positions they gained in every instance. However, we have all witnessed, especially with a number of MPs on the right of the Parliamentary party, those persons not accept that elected democracy and who have by every means and opportunity possible set out to undermine those elected persons and the core policies they have once again brought back to the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Selling undermining stories to newspapers often for personal monetary gain and covertly recording private meetings is behaviour that in any commercial company would have been met with immediate dismissal from employment of those carrying out such practises. However, Jeremy Corbyn did not engage in such disciplinary actions, as he always believed he could accommodate those MPs. Sadly, in that he was wrong.

Authoritarian malpractice has been the prerogative of those on the right of the Parliamentary party as part of a campaign to bring forward once again a Blairite image and policies to the party. That cannot succeed with the Parliamentary party and National Executive as it is now structured, and what those that still hold such "dreams" fell to realise is that if it did succeed then the Parliamentary Labour Party would very quickly have "the plug pulled on it" by the wider Labour movement. There will be no going back of that I am very sure.

Anyway, we are just about to fly out to visit our offices in Belgium for a couple of days, so pardon me Galaxy and others if I am unable to post further in that period in regard to this very interesting thread and debate.

Why do you think the people rejected the LP at this election MaizieD.

So when the LP campaigns with a manifesto to deal with those issues, Iam, the people reject it.

Why?

As a fully paid up member of the Labour Party I do find a mere affiliate member telling voters they cannot discuss the
labour leadership whilst they discuss the liberal Democratic Party.

I see that RLBailey has announced she gives Jeremy Corbyn 10 our of 10 for his leadership. It's all the fault of the rwmedia, and Brexit of course it is. (not)

The idea that only those who are LP members or associates can discuss the leadership election seems like a reflection of those who currently control the Party. It's their way or the highway. Never mind that the people the LP was set up to help are languishing with universal credit, low wages, zero hours and vanishingly rare public services. We must all be totally pure, never compromise and certainly, never listen to the voters.

Indeed we cant have anyone who flip flops can we. Only people who live by the 'code' are allowed to express an opinion because their opinion is the right one. Many.people are saying it was corbyn or brexit that lost the election, actually it was much more complex than that, certainly for me it was the authoritarian approach of certain sections of the party. A belief that they are morally right has led to some terrible behaviour within the labour party.

Well, I'm not very straight just after all that Christmas food.
But I am pure in mind and spirit!!

(Well, kind of)

Straight and pure? Drat! That's me out then!

Anyway, Grandad doesn't want my vote because I'm not straight and pure enough.