Sensible Discussion on Labour Leadership hopefuls MK 2

Keir Starmer has just announced he wouldn’t have RLB or Lisa Nandy on his front bench if elected!

Really Urm perhaps you could provide a link to that er ‘fact’. I rather thought he’d refused to say if he would have them in his shadow cabinet. That just sounds sensible not to commit himself in advance and become a hostage to fortune. Oh the world according to Urm

POGS, in regard to your post @14:55 yesterday, then your guess would be as good as mine. However, in stating they would resign if Rebbeca Long-Bailey is elected as leader it has to have come from right wing MPs within the party.

In the above, and if I were a betting man, my money would be on Margret Beckett, Margret Hodge and the small group who have been in league with those two in recent times.

Hodge would certainly have the connections into the right wing press especially "the Times" where I believe this story first emerged before the "Red Tops" gave it more prominence.

RLB however is not going to be elected so sadly for some there will not be the almost unbearably exciting frisson brought about by resignations. The sooner this interminable contest is over the better and we have a grown up in charge.

suziewoozie, I do not believe they will actually resign should Long-Bailey be elected as leader. However, it is the threat to do so, and the running to the right wing press with such stories that is the most damaging.

In doing that they could well ensure the end of this present Parliamentary Labour Party I believe.

Shadow cabinet
Front bench

“A frontbencher is either a Government minister or an Opposition shadow spokesperson. They are so-called because they occupy the front benches on either side of the Chamber when the House is in session, with other party members - backbenchers - sitting behind them.”

(Definition obtained from www.parliament.uk)

Semantics. You know what I meant suziewoozie! You just wanted to pull me up (again).

Ni Urm I called you out on yet another example of a post that was not true.

Urmstongran, can I suggest that you just ignore the posts of one forum member who seems to be determined to troll you at every opportunity.

Just keep posting in your usual manner which many of us for so long just love to see.

The Guardian's report about who would serve in Starmer's shadow cabinet is confusing. Starmer says he won't commit to having his leadership rivals in his shadow cabinet while Rebecca Long-Bailey takes this as a rejection. RBL and Nandy say they would have Starmer but, of course, for him to accept, it would depend on what the job on offer was and the t's & c's attached.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/15/keir-starmer-refuses-to-promise-jobs-to-labour-leadership-rivals

The Huffington Post says 30-50 MPs would resign from the Labour Party if RBL were to become leader. Who knows what would actually happen but, with RBL at 8/1 in a 3 horse race with a 1/7 favourite, it is unlikely. That said, politics is full of surprises.

And Urm posted that he’d said he wouldn’t have them in his cabinet. That post of hers was wrong and probably intended to be mischief making.

Yes nobody even dreamt that Jeremy Corbyn would be elected in 2015.

Much depends on the affiliate membership vote which is always not high but they are trade union activists which tend to vote in very similar thinking to each other.

Hahahaha * Grandad* giving Urm permission to post things that are not true. I guess you’re still smarting from our exchange. Well carry on being so ‘male’.

And do you even know what troll means?

And Urm posted that he’d said he wouldn’t have them in his cabinet. That post of hers was wrong and probably intended to be mischief making.

Not true suziewoozie!

Ah you are a true gentleman Grandad1943! Thank you. I’ve only just read your post.

suziewoozie it’s good to debate but may I say - you always seem so darned cross! Why so belligerent all the time - or is it just me who winds you up? If so, I apologise, it’s not intentional! Happy Sunday!

And finally Grandad perhaps you’d be so good as to mansplain to me why not committing to carrying out a certain course of action is interchangeable with refusing to carry out a certain course of action. I know I’m only a little woman so can’t quite get the semantic nuances in this so would be awfully grateful for your esteemed male help ( I do however know the difference between gay and trans but hey that hardly matters)

Urm it’s your wrong information that is aimed at criticising KS that is just irritating and ridiculous quite frankly. Why should I not correct a frankly rubbish post?

Okay if I’m wrong I get that.

What did I say that was wrong about KS please?

It is amazing. This thread calls for sensible discussion. I try to add clarification and it gets ignored. Maybe, c'est la vie or just internet 'discussion'. ☹️

Saying RLB is NOT going to get elected is far from reality, the Labour party’s capacity for self destruction is well proved.
As for MPs resigning they probably won’t, that’s press speculation, in that respect Labour is no different to the Tories, there is a range of opinions and there are plenty of Blairite MPs who stayed under Corbyn.

Oh Urm this is getting boring now. You said he said he wouldn’t have LN and RLB in his shadow cabinet. He did not. He refused to commit to who he’d have . Do keep up and try to concentrate. The two different courses of action say different things about him.

Grandad do you have proof that Margaret Hodge and Margaret Beckett are in league with the rightwing press and do you have a link proving this, please?
Would you bet more than a tenner that they are?

I always thought Margaret Beckett a most reasonable woman.

Sorry Cunco I suppose I’ve been focusing on the ‘world according to Urm’ barb!

sooziewoozie I didn’t make that comment up you know - it was in yesterday’s DM on line.

RLB however is not going to be elected
I hope your crystal ball is better than mine suziewoozie as I confidently predicted that Boris would never be PM.

It's c'est la vie, Cunco. Many people don't read the thread before they post. If you post a clarification you often find that someone else posts much the same thing a few posts further on. Happens all the time.

In this case your clarification was timely.

I'd acquit Ug of mischief making but see her intervention as an example of the miscomprehension and misuse of language which leads to unjustified conclusions. We see that all the time, too.