You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Party
- Thread starter Ban-jani
- Start date
I voted RLB for leader and Rayner as Deputy.
Well, it's not a straight vote but a preference thing. RLB then Nandy then Starmer
May I ask why?
May I ask why?
Because we're going to lose the next election. So, unfortunately, we have to forget about who is the most electable to the public because it doesn't matter. If we're not in power then we have no ability to create/change legislation and if we don't have that then we' cant help people.
My flow chart of voting tactics is always simple. If we're electable then vote for the guy who will most likely win the election. If a person is in power and is unpopular but the Party as a whole is still electable then try to push them towards an electable platform. If electability is a pipe dream then vote for the person who you believe can move the policy platform into something that I personally prefer.
Members votes are only really important if you can win an election and Labour can't do that in 2024 without one of the biggest political turnarounds in modern British history.
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
I voted RLB for leader and Rayner as Deputy.
Well, it's not a straight vote but a preference thing. RLB then Nandy then Starmer
dear me.
dear me.
Incisive analysis as ever
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
Incisive analysis as ever
come on. Please.
in terms of impressive and able to win your order is totally the wrong way round.
she is a manipulated sixth former
come on. Please.
in terms of impressive and able to win your order is totally the wrong way round.
she is a manipulated sixth former
It's almost as if different people have different politics, different views and different reasons to vote for candidates with some policies being more important than others.
I'll call my mates at the Daily Mail and get them in on this groundbreaking exclusive
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
It's almost as if different people have different politics, different views and different reasons to vote for candidates with some policies being more important than others.
I'll call my mates at the Daily Mail and get them in on this groundbreaking exclusive
your first sentence is fine no problem with that
your second sentence is just irrelevant bullshit. Most daily mail reAders will support your vote. Crack on.
your first sentence is fine no problem with that
your second sentence is just irrelevant bullshit. Most daily mail reAders will support your vote. Crack on.
So just to clarify, you think that Daily Mail readers are going to support the left wing socialist Rebecca Long-Bailey? Is because of their unwavering support in her predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn?
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
So just to clarify, you think that Daily Mail readers are going to support the left wing socialist Rebecca Long-Bailey? Is because of their unwavering support in her predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn?
no because they know she is unelectable in the wider electorate and therefore daily mail readers will be delighted if she wins.
where as starmar has more of a chance and has more broad appeal. Although I have been most impressed with nandy in the debates I have to say.
the least impressive by a million miles is the King bailey .she will be 10/10 for you and all Tory voters.
labour still not worked out they need to appeal to the non voters or wavering voters not the hard left to win an election.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
The relentless purification of the party has turned out a product in those two which is far too intense for the common taste Damo.I voted RLB for leader and Rayner as Deputy.
Well, it's not a straight vote but a preference thing. RLB then Nandy then Starmer
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
no because they know she is unelectable in the wider electorate and therefore daily mail readers will be delighted if she wins.
where as starmar has more of a chance and has more broad appeal. Although I have been most impressed with nandy in the debates I have to say.
the least impressive by a million miles is the King bailey .she will be 10/10 for you and all Tory voters.
labour still not worked out they need to appeal to the non voters or wavering voters not the hard left to win an election.
which is what I remember someone criticising Labour for before on here...yet now supporting someone more unelectable than Corbyn.
which is what I remember someone criticising Labour for before on here...yet now supporting someone more unelectable than Corbyn.
I literally explained my position in incredible easy, point by point steps.
If you're not going to actually read and try to understand justifications and instead try to make these pseudo-snarky justifications then I have no incentive to answer anything you say apart from with "fuck off"
no because they know she is unelectable in the wider electorate and therefore daily mail readers will be delighted if she wins.
where as starmar has more of a chance and has more broad appeal. Although I have been most impressed with nandy in the debates I have to say.
the least impressive by a million miles is the King bailey .she will be 10/10 for you and all Tory voters.
labour still not worked out they need to appeal to the non voters or wavering voters not the hard left to win an election.
So to again clarify, what you'd like to do is take the most electable Labour candidate we've had in perhaps 20 years and shackle him to an impossible electoral position where winning is almost impossible and will give further ammo to the ideal within that anybody who looks remotely New Labour cannot win?
I like the Labour Party and enjoy being elected so I don't tend to look at our diamonds and decide it would be best to put them in positions where they can only fail. But I'm the traditional, not totally stupid, type.
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
I literally explained my position in incredible easy, point by point steps.
If you're not going to actually read and try to understand justifications and instead try to make these pseudo-snarky justifications then I have no incentive to answer anything you say apart from with "fuck off"
No, you just showed you're full of bullshit, and you're going to help continue letting millions of people down by contributing to them not having a choice again next election.
You appoint a leader to lead you to an election win, otherwise you never have a chance of winning. What do you think is post RLB, moderate, election winning politics? Bollocks if you do, the only way to get Labour close is to start edging it back so the step after 2024 is another step closer, not another lurch further away into chaos and disrepute.
So you can "fuck off".
No, you just showed you're full of bullshit, and you're going to help continue letting millions of people down by contributing to them not having a choice again next election.
You appoint a leader to lead you to an election win, otherwise you never have a chance of winning. What do you think is post RLB, moderate, election winning politics? Bollocks if you do, the only way to get Labour close is to start edging it back so the step after 2024 is another step closer, not another lurch further away into chaos and disrepute.
So you can "fuck off".
lol. Take your fake outrage to someone who didn't see through your shit in, oh about 2012.
You might want to put the only electable Labour candidate in a position whereby they'd have to turn over the greatest election victory in UK history to succeed, but I actually want to govern so I differ. I don't know whether you're too dense to see this point or you're too dense to understand the position that the next Labour leader will be in. But either way you're too dense to continue this conversation with. Back to bed mate, the adults are talking.
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
lol. Take your fake outrage to someone who didn't see through your shit in, oh about 2012.
You might want to put the only electable Labour candidate in a position whereby they'd have to turn over the greatest election victory in UK history to succeed, but I actually want to govern so I differ. I don't know whether you're too dense to see this point or you're too dense to understand the position that the next Labour leader will be in. But either way you're too dense to continue this conversation with. Back to bed mate, the adults are talking.
well, you won't. There is no point to see when you won't get to see the day your faux logic has bizarrely rationalised. I'll see you on Twitter...oh wait. Good job, kid.
well, you won't. There is no point to see when you won't get to see the day your faux logic has bizarrely rationalised. I'll see you on Twitter...oh wait. Good job, kid.
"Kid" lol. I've got socks older than you Ben. It wasn't that long ago that you were vomiting your angsty teenage drama all over the forum.
I'm going to charitably presume that you're not a member of the Labour Party or don't quite understand the current state of it. Let me help. Let's say Starmer wins then he very obviously loses the next election. What do you think the next step here is? A mass outbreak of rationality and togetherness?
No. He gets resigned as a backwards step and then we go into a good 3 or 4 election cycles of unelectable candidates each vying for control of a failing Party. The further reaches of the Party play the "we told you so" game.
Let's say RLB takes over. One of two things happens. Either she takes the nation with her to make her policy position an electable one, or she blows up and then we can say "it wasn't Corbyn, it wasn't Brexit, it was the policies" and the modern socialist experiment is over as a mainstream force, and we rebuild after that.
The only possible reason to vote for Starmer is that you think he can actually win a General Election. This means that you believe that he's not just electable but literally the most electable candidate in modern British history who cannot possibly lose, which I'd say is a massive massive misreading of the polls and of Starmer himself.
hilts
Well-Known Member
"Kid" lol. I've got socks older than you Ben. It wasn't that long ago that you were vomiting your angsty teenage drama all over the forum.
I'm going to charitably presume that you're not a member of the Labour Party or don't quite understand the current state of it. Let me help. Let's say Starmer wins then he very obviously loses the next election. What do you think the next step here is? A mass outbreak of rationality and togetherness?
No. He gets resigned as a backwards step and then we go into a good 3 or 4 election cycles of unelectable candidates each vying for control of a failing Party. The further reaches of the Party play the "we told you so" game.
Let's say RLB takes over. One of two things happens. Either she takes the nation with her to make her policy position an electable one, or she blows up and then we can say "it wasn't Corbyn, it wasn't Brexit, it was the policies" and the modern socialist experiment is over as a mainstream force, and we rebuild after that.
The only possible reason to vote for Starmer is that you think he can actually win a General Election. This means that you believe that he's not just electable but literally the most electable candidate in modern British history who cannot possibly lose, which I'd say is a massive massive misreading of the polls and of Starmer himself.
You must be pretty down as a labour supporter that the best case scenario is RLB wins and gets trounced so that in 10 years time a more centrist Labour Party stands a chance?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
I voted RLB for leader and Rayner as Deputy.
Well, it's not a straight vote but a preference thing. RLB then Nandy then Starmer
Good to see you back online mate, especially active in the media thread ;-)
On this i cant agree though as she is Corbyn in a frock, it doesnt move the party on from what is an extreme position back towards the centre which it needs and it guarantees the Tories power for a long time.
Im not a member but if i was it would be Nandy and i would go with Rayner as deputy.